| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
New IE may burst pop-up bubble | |
|
||
| Time: 11:41 EST/16:41 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Pop-up advertisements have thrived for years despite numerous efforts to eradicate them, but now online marketers are seriously wondering whether the Web's most detested ad format is about to meet its match: Microsoft. The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant recently indicated that it will add pop-up blocking features to Internet Explorer (IE) next year, as part of an update for Windows XP. Others have offered similar tools before, but because IE so thoroughly dominates the browser market, ad executives and Internet watchers believe the changes could finally burst the bubble for pop-ups | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 338 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:42:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 61 (24.92.223.181) at 11/24/2003 1:48:43 PM |
|
Spam is by far much more annoying than pop-up ads.
Speaking of pop-ups, has anyone seen the cartoon Aqua Teen Hunger Force, on Adult Swim? They have a great episode all about pop-up ads. |
| #2 By 61 (24.92.223.181) at 11/24/2003 3:20:40 PM |
|
fast_math: They review the software, that does not take down operational costs.
They (at least since they went to their own server) have to pay for bandwidth, their server/server software, domain name registration, etc... This isn't cheap, and as such ads are needed. What makes you think that AW is selling information? What, exactly, would be worth selling anyway? Everything in the profile section is completely voluntary, and, really, useless to any sort of marketer. Why do people like yourself disreguard the fact that website owners have to PAY to give you content. If you think you pay too much for inet access then you need to talk to your ISP, it's not the website owners fault, heck, they have to pay MORE money than you do for their connection. |
| #3 By 3 (62.253.128.7) at 11/24/2003 4:15:29 PM |
|
#9 - you can check out our privacy information page, which has been up on our site the last two years at http://www.activewin.com/terms/privacy.shtml - we don't sell on any details - considering we hardly collect any details of our users thats not surprising.
As for the so called $$$$$ we get thanks to reviewing products - apart from the odd thing Microsoft send us (and the games we review) we pay for some stuff we review. The reviews are vital to the site as they help bring in the advertising money that only just covers the server. It gets annoying when we have to point this out numerous times - no one here earns a penny, yes we get some review products to keep (hardware we almost never get to keep), but if you think that makes up for all the hard work people put in, and the money that has previously come from our own pockets, you are sadly wrong. |
| #4 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/24/2003 7:38:20 PM |
| IIRC without the use of an ActiveX control or similar plugin, MAC address, Country (I'm assuming you mean physical location), browsing history, hardware, and software (other than ActiveX controls usable by the browser) are impossible to determine via HTTP request/client-side DOM. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/25/2003 2:28:50 AM |
|
I'm happy to see a popup blocker in the browser, but I have a feeling it will be short lived.
Advertising companies will start to suit Microsoft, and other people who have popup blockers. They essentially allow you to use a service without "paying" for it. Is it legal to rip the ads out of AIM or CuteFTP and continue to use them? No. So why should it be legal for web pages simply because it's easier. Again, I want a popup blocker. These things can get out of control. But the fact of the matter is, they may be illegal. |
| #6 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/25/2003 3:23:56 AM |
|
RMD, if reverse engineering is legal. Then why is it illegal to rev eng AIM/Cute/<pick your app> to remove ads? I'm not think in terms of ethics here, just in terms of legality. I realize the license would prevent it, but in the case of rev eng, isn't the legal in the US, despite the license.
fast, I was about to post my results, but I see that ketsugi already did. A few hw details - vid card supports screen res of 1600x1200, 32-bit color depth (doesn't specify card though), x86 CPU... was that really hard to guess when you knew what OS I was running? It didn't give any info that I wasn't aware that was available. After all, I'm a web dev guy and take stats for my clients. Of course I know what's in an HTTP request/HTML DOM. |
| #7 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 11/25/2003 10:18:07 AM |
|
Shouldn't it be up to the web site to determine what kinds of ads they show? If you find them intrusive enough, you shouldn't use the site.
BobSmith - I'm not sure this really is similar to reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is legal only because the information gathered is "in plain sight". Just like you can't sue somebody for being a peeping tom if you're standing naked in your livingroom window. Ripping ads out of applications isn't really the same thing. In fact, I'd bet it's covered by the DMCA. That makes me wonder if the DMCA covers popups as well. |
| #8 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 11/25/2003 10:40:16 AM |
|
#31 "I have done web design, 9 years ago.
Application dev, I was the 132nd member of msdn when it opened. to shorten it up, I now help newbie netbabies setup and secure thier systems. And some have so much trust, actually lack of knowledge, thier systems are wide open! " This scares me if true. I would assume that someone who was helping "newbie netbabies" setup and secure "thier systems" and had done some web design 9 years ago and was the 132nd member of msdn would have more knowledge of internet and internet privacy than you do. Honestly, if you are as knowledgeable about the web and security/privacy on the web then you would know that that page you linked to is simply a scare tactic. The ONLY Personally identifiable information that is shown on that page in few cases is the IP Address. It is actually safe to say that there is nothing on that page that identifies anything about the user. It does give the IP/OS/Browser etc. You are probably the one deleting all the cookies on your machine because you think that marketers are getting your DL# or your SSN or something. I hope you don't charge much for consulting... cause I feel sorry for your clients. |
| #9 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/25/2003 11:57:04 AM |
|
#34 - what if the Post Office started offering a service...
That's not really the same thing. By visiting a web site, you are essentially asking for a service. You "pay" for that service by being subjected to popup advertisements. With junk mail, there is no service you are requesting, nor a product you're "paying" for by getting that mail. I suppose there could be a situation where in order to receive a product or service from that company you had to agree to receive their advertisements in the mail. In that situation, by asking the post office to subvert your method of "payment" you would indeed be breaking the rules of the contract for the exchange of goods. Those ads might be offensive to people, should they have the right to have those removed before they have to encounter them Oh come on. First off, you, nor anybody else, should have the right not to be offended. That's silly. Second, you are the one visting the site. It was your action that loaded the site on to your computer. If you don't like the ads being shown, don't go to the site. But not going to the site is entirely different than essentially stealing from that site by blocking their source of revenue. This post was edited by RMD on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 at 11:58. |
| #10 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/25/2003 1:55:29 PM |
|
#37 - WalMart edits the CDs they sell so people aren't offended
But they edit them with the express permission of the record labels that put out the CDs. There is no way they could edit them without that permission. Of course, they could choose not to sell them at all. Personally, I find it disgusting that Walmart would edit these products at all. Do they really believe that people are so fragile that they must censor music? That is, of course, another discussion. but this country tends to protect people's right to be offended I agree... this country tends to ignore its own Constitution. But I really doubt that being offended by the ads has much to do with the reasons why people block them. |
| #11 By 2960 (156.80.64.137) at 11/25/2003 4:04:35 PM |
|
#1,
Why wait? Google Toolbar 2.0. Bet popup blocker there is and it's free. www.google.com |
| #12 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/25/2003 4:52:56 PM |
|
I'm offended by people getting offended by popups.
What about MY rights? Sigh... Come to think of it... I'm offended by having to pay for anything. Everything should be free. It's my right not to be offended, after all. |
| #13 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/25/2003 5:38:14 PM |
|
I'm afraid I've patented the being offended, RMD, so to add insult to injury (offense to injury?), I'm going to sue you.
Seriously though, using RMD's logic things like Tivo (no personal experience just going off what I've read) that can remove ads from TV shows when it records them would also be an ethics violation and perhaps legal with DMCA. It's now the second time I've heard that argument. The first was from a friend of mine who was, at that moment, stealing some music from a popular p2p network. I wasn't exactly interested in the hypocrite's opinion. I think I'll think this over. |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 11/25/2003 6:28:31 PM |
| I'm offended by people who don't watch the advertising like God intended it to be watched! |
| #15 By 2332 (216.41.45.78) at 11/25/2003 6:44:27 PM |
|
#42 - using RMD's logic things like Tivo...that can remove ads from TV shows when it records them would also be an ethics violation and perhaps legal with DMCA
Yes, actually. Notice that the new Tivos don't do that anymore? They were threatened with law suits. I wasn't exactly interested in the hypocrite's opinion I, unlike your friend, don't steal music. Every MP3 I have was either ripped from a CD I own, or downloaded as a last resort because the CD simply isn't available for puchase, and I certainly don't share my mp3s on any P2P services. Oh, and by the way, I'm offended by sodablue being offended. |
| #16 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/25/2003 7:13:24 PM |
|
RMD, I rather suspected that, which is why I'm more interested in considering the idea now.
I wonder about this ad thing. If things like time shifting are legal under 'fair use,' I wonder whether ad removal might fall into the same category. I have underlining of hyperlinks turned off in my browser. This can materially alter the presentation of its content, not the content itself, only contents presentation. Using client specified stylesheet, I can do similarly. Using a page scraper, I can alter the content itself. Do I have the legal right to do these things? If I buy a book, tear out its pages, rearrange them to suit my fancy, is that legal? I'd say that if I keep the, arguably, derivative work to myself, then it's all covered by 'fair use'...even the page scraping. So, if I remove ads (ads are just content, right?), it seems it'd fall into the same legal category. Not ethical, mind you, just legal. If I have signed no agreement, and I'm not sure passive agreements (little links to agreements at the bottoms of pages that you might have never read and mostly likely never clicked "i agree" to indicate your commitment to compliance) would stand up in court, how am I breaking the law? You brought up DMCA, which is an interesting point. I've not read it, perhaps I should, I've only read the more generic stuff in Title 17. I understand the intent of DMCA is to prevent circumvention of copy protection mechanisms that would materially harm the copyright owner. Generally, the copyright code allows usage of copyright protected material in any manner if it will not materially harm the owner. I suppose, if this is a copyright issue, that this is issue at hand. I've always understood, though, that it only applies in a non personal setting. In other words, if I do it myself, it's my business and I'm not helping others to materially harm the copyright holder. Basically, users of the new IE, Google Toolbar 2.0, Norton Internet Security 2003+, etc. are blameless, but the venders, since they aid in the material harm of copyright holders, would be liable. I doubt this woiuld hold up in court though, since even rediculously obvious material harm bringing software (e.g., p2p software), other than the original Napster, has so far been held as legal. |
| #17 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 11/25/2003 7:25:24 PM |
| Regarding users, I'm rethinking that. Users of p2p should be liable, but in that scenario they are helping others (by offering protected material they don't have the right to offer) to materially injure the copyright holder. Hmm, I'll think on this some more. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 338 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:42:18 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
