Slashdot Log In
Does Adblock Violate A Social Contract?
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 15, 2005 01:47 PM
from the do-your-part-citizen dept.
from the do-your-part-citizen dept.
almondjoy writes "Newsforge is currently running a story on Firefox extensions where the author states the following regarding use of the AdBlock extension: 'If you use this tool ... there are those who would assert you are not holding up your end of a 'social contract' between yourself and the Web site that you are browsing' Would you be volating a social contract hitting the 30sec skip button on Tivo? Or putting a strip of paper across the bottom of our TV screen to block out those super annoying scrolling banners? I have found that using the combination of AdBlock and FlashBlock extensions in Firefox has greatly enhanced my browsing experience. Has acceptance of web sites crammed with advertising content become part of my social contract with society?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
the answer is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no contract. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I hate the idea of "free" websites with ads. You want to espouse your views? Pay to do so. You can share a server with a bunch of folks for a pittance a month. Blogging can be had ad-free cheaply.
I wanted more than that, and I know what I'm doing, so I bought a used server and pay for rack space, and so far there are no ads. There probably will be at some point, but they'll be low key, and they won't pop up, pop under, grab, track, or anything else. They'll just sit there (like google ads do). That'll be to help cover costs on the public service site. Or I may just do a PayPal donation thing like some sites do; I have had folks send me money and gear in appreciation.
But my personal stuff? I pay for that. Why should someone else have to pay for my "right" to express myself? That's INSANE.
I pay for my internet connection. I pay for my server. I have *zero* obligation to allow myself to be annoyed by anyone else's choices.
Parent
Re:There is no contract. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have several content-based sites that do OK with Google Ads (covering expenses). On a typical day the amount that an average visitor "pays" $0.002 to view a bit of content by a certain percentage clicking on an ad. Through advertising, that bit of content has a value of $0.002.
Exactly which revenue collection source enables me to collect the $0.002 that the current advertising market has indicated that my content is worth (a price that is viable and workable under the current system)?
A really good content site might have 4 heavily viewed articles/tutorials and generate numbers like I mentioned above. With current ad participation, a site like that could easily have 5000 article "reads" and would make somewhere in the ballpark of $300/month. That's a clear indication that those 4 articles have actual market value. However, take away the aggregated payment via advertisement and you lose the ability to effectively collect the already determined price for the articles since even a full-pass, reading all 4 articles still falls under the $0.01 that hard currency handles and well below any practical online payment mechanism.
And, before you think that, again, this is some great conspiracy of people who just don't understand the difference between physical and electronic items, I'd like to point out that this type of aggregated payment happens all over the place for both tangible items and non-tangible items.
Lots of people (and governments) rely on this type of payment to provide entirely viable products and services. Consider city water. I pay a couple of dollars per 1000 gallons. Between my household use and my lawn, etc. I use enough to generate a bill of $60 or so every couple of months. Each gallon has an actual cost, but it's entirely unpractical to try to buy each gallon from the city individually. Remove the water meters and aggregated billing/payment and it's not like the cost of delivering clean city water went away or that the value of doing so went away, it's just the the mechanism for collecting payment per unit consumed fell apart and stopped the system from working.
Do you think your individual taxes pay for even 1 police officer to keep your neighborhood safe? Does that mean that a police officer's salary and benefit to the community isn't a "viable product"? Absolutely not. Rather, it means that the value per citizen is low enough while the cost of providing is high enough that the cost needs to be spread out across a population of people.
Parent
Re:the answer is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They put commercials on cable television that I already pay for.
They put commercials on DVDs that I already purchased.
They put commercials before movies that I already paid to go see
They put commercials in my email inbox.
They sell my personal information without even telling me (unless it's in super super fine print)
They try to throw away all my consumer rights just by opening their package (EULAs)
Etc..
Parent
Re:the answer is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The social contract is not between "an" end-user and "a" website, it's between all the end-users and all the websites.
I didn't care about the ad banners or Google's ads on webpages. I do care about alternate red-blue-green blinking animated GIFs, Java and Flash crap dancing around the screen, deliberately trying to block text, popups and popunders, and endless Automatic Installer windows asking to install Gator or some other crap. This doesn't even touch those who try to install stuff without permission.
No, the contract has been violated by the marketers and the webmasters who use them. I'm now just defending myself with a squid proxy and adzap. Collateral damage like Slashdot's ads getting blocked is the result.
Parent
Re:the answer is.. (Score:5, Informative)
No, unless you get frustrated for not being allowed to fast forward for the Nth time, forcing you to use illegal practices that end up taking the money away from... guess who? The same people that paid so you would be FORCED to see a commercial in a product you purchased.
This isn't about any "social contract" (for social issues and contracts read the previous
It's not a fair fight. They're the ones with the money in the first place.
Also, people who use Adblock didn't download it to get rid of "nice, non-intrusive ads" that decorate a webpage. They did it to get rid of the ANNOYING GARBAGE THAT THEY _DO NOT_ PLAN TO BUY ANYWAY!
I'm glad for adblock. It'll teach the sponsors that pay-per-click advertising wasn't such a good idea after all.
Parent
Re:the answer is.. (Score:5, Informative)
I a site provides information, I have the right to receive that information and do whatever I want with it (with the above proscribed limitation). If I want to remove every 5th word, I can. There is no lgocial reason I should not be allowed to do this. If I want to record something off of the TV and skip every other 5 seconds of information, why should I not be allowed to do this?
An ad is just a piece of information. Just like any other piece of information. I am not changing the original information, just my version of it. To filter information comes very naturally. I don't have to watch TV commercials, I change the channel or go do something else, or skip ahead. If I'm reading the newspaper, I do not have to look at every add in the paper, I just look at the information in which I am interested. For the newspaper, my only obligation to obtain the information was the 50 cents I put into the machine.
If a website requires money from readers in order to survive, then they need to figure out the best way to obtain said money. If they think advertising is going to work, that's fine, but they have to figure the percentage of readership that will actually see the ad. Just like over-the-air television. TV stations/networks can't make you watch the very thing that is paying their way. All they can do is tell advertisers approximately how many people watch, and use statistical modelling to determine how many of those watch the commercials.
If a website wants to charge users for access, that is fine, and would be along the lines of HBO charging for access to their information.
Just like in over-the-air television, I cannot steal (or break a social contract) if the information is offered free in the first place.
As for newspapers, am I breaking a social contract by leaving the newspaper I read at lunch for someone else to read? Or what about libraries? Are they breaking a social contract by letting multiple people read the same copy of a book?
Like I said above, modifying Firefox or creating software that retrieves available information in a manner I desire is up to the me, as long as I don't pass off that modified information as the original source. What would be a problem is if the ISP that provided the website the hardware and IP connection, choose to modify the information before being sent out, simply because this would then have the ISP transmitting modified information as the original source. (I am not talking about mail or http headers. The headers should be considered public access, but rather the actual content as created.)
Parent
Re:the answer is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:the answer is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Bullshit... social contract isn't violated by a to (Score:5, Insightful)
What gets me is that arguably, social cotract was first violated by offending websites and ad-server ppl in general, with things like popups, glaringly bad animation (ie, flashing colors, etc). Not to mention the EVIL doubleclick and their "we will track your ass... try and avoid us, punk" attitude. Which is what I believe the adblock authors were trying to control/avoid/defeat.
I won't adblock a server/ad that's generally nice or doesn't get in the way of my browsing... think google or other text-based adverts, or even non-animated, "non-epilepsy inducing" image ads. THATs a real social contract... because google/etc know that their revenue relies on their good behavior. I respect that.
Finally, on a dialup (like at my parents place), adblock SIGNIFICANTLY improves performance. I think removal of bloat is impressively important for non-broadband folks, and that's another case of advertisers "messing with social contract". I especially hated it when the page would load fast, but the ad at the top woudl sit there and hold up the entire page from rendering. WTF.
Re:Bullshit... social contract isn't violated by a (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you!
I'm still on dial-up (free from university), and I often use Adblock in this way. Many pages I frequent have some images that simply waste bandwidth. For instance, I have blocked a lot of the images on my on-line banking website so that the response time is better. Getting rid of those images cuts down how long I'm dialed in.
Parent
Re:Bullshit... social contract isn't violated by a (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, they've violated any form of 'social contract' en masse by hijacking peoples' PCs for new ways of delivering ads. I believe that installing software through bugs in the web browser is tantamount to breaking into someones' computer. Companies that design and implement such software, and other companies that contract for their ads to be delivered should be prosecuted and their owners/directors jailed for their abuses.
I also have an opinion about software companies leaving their products vulnerable for years like this, but that's for another debate.
Parent
Yeah, it wasn't a "social contract" relationship.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some advertisers think that the only way to sell to people is to get in their face, and demand their attention like a screaming child. Hence, you get crappy ad formats like Eyeblaster and Pointroll. This is a way to piss people off, more than a way to induce them to buy your product, and I think their high click rates are only due to people trying to find the "Close" button to make the ad go away. Fortunately, not all advertisers are like this. Many are starting to recognize that something big and flashy is only "cool" once and otherwise subtle and contextual is really the only way to endear you to your customers online.
Meanwhile, some users think that there should be NO ads on the internet. They think that it's their right to access their favorite sites for free and they shouldn't be bothered with the ads that actually pay for the site to exist. Many content publishers work hard to make sure their ads aren't obtrusive, fit well within their site and they fight back against the Bad Advertisers (see above) by refusing their business -- but that doesn't matter to these users. They demand free stuff!
Fortunately users and advertisers recognize there is a middle ground, and so there's still a lot of harmony in the advertising-supported-website / good-user-experience world.
But the lunatics on both sides are forcing the issue to a head. They're starting an arms race, between the AdBlock/FlashBlock software, and designing a site around advertising (instead of vice-versa). If these people keep pushing it, soon lots more free sites will be entirely done in flash (or some other proprietary format) where you can't disable the ads; and the ads will become the content itself. Increasing product placements on tv shows are just a natural evolution of advertising supported broadcasters losing money from increasing use of commercial skipping systems. Pay-tv like HBO is one answer but not the answer to everything. There can be a middle ground, but both sides have to work for it.
Parent
What social contract? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't feel bad about not watching most commercials on TV or ripping the DVD's I buy and removing al the crap from them. I paid for the product, I don't want to see more ads. I pay about $140 a month to my cable company for Digital cable, Digital Broadband and a Digital phone. The least the cable company can do is get rid of ads for me, though I know that day will never come.
The only ad content I don't make an effort to block are text based ads like Google uses. I have no problem with those types of ads since they do not distract me. The day most/all web ads are text based and don't flash to "get your attention" is the day that I will stop using adblock and flashblock to block web ads. Oh, and adblock has two modes: "remove images" and "hide images". The "remove images" option doesn't download the images and the "hide images" option downloads but doesn't display them. So if you want to surf a site and still help out the web advertiser, just use "hide images", though I use "remove images" so I can get faster page load times.
Re:What social contract? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Balderdash, Codswallop, etc. etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
If a commercial website can't support itself via its audience, that website should die. If the users of the website are sufficiently motivated to pay for content, they will, and it will survive. Here's a hint: if you need to be paid, then be up-front and honest about it (eg: LWN [lwn.net]). If your worth preserving, you'll be fine.
There is no such thing as an implied or "social" contract - by their very nature, contracts are not implications! The whole terminology is a marketing exercise designed to appeal to the "guilt" that just because someone is giving you something, you ought to pay for it.
Sheesh! Social contracts! What next ? Breathing contracts ?
Simon
Re:Balderdash, Codswallop, etc. etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's clear that you are correct, and that social contracts are necesarry and desirable.
However I don't see how that immedately translates to advertisers. How am I obligated to put money in their pockets?
Parent
Using commercial time to go to the bathroom (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
the preexisting contract (Score:5, Insightful)
If web sites have a problem with this, they need to learn to read the fine print before they sign.
I sure hope so (Score:5, Funny)
-Jesse
There's an old saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech is the right to say whatever you want; it's not the right to make people listen.
Social Contract in the real world (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should this be different on the internet?
Pure BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't sign any contract. I didn't agree to any ToS. I don't want to see your commercials, so poo on you.
THEY VIOLATED IT, NOT US. (Score:5, Insightful)
Adverisers took the social contract, ripped it into fifty billion pieces, then get upset when we don't abide by our side of the contract?
Look, I am perfectly willing to see reasonable, well placed ads. I am seeing a Vonage banner ad above Slashdot write now. I am NOT forced to see intrusive, obnoxious crap that intereferes with the reason why I use the service. Anything that requires me to "click" on it to send it away qualifies as abusive intereference, and should be outlawed.
Morons think "If I can get them involved, they will pay more attention to my ad" Instead most consumers get ANGRY at both the site that is abusing them and the moron company that thinks "bad pr is better than no pr".
"Social Contract" extended into the physical world (Score:5, Funny)
Social Contract cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
When media sites start carrying advertising that's not disrespectful of their audience's intelligence, then I'll worry about bypassing it disturbing a social contract, but while its not adhering to the social contract itself then they can bite my shiney metal ass.
Complete misunderstanding of "contract" (Score:5, Insightful)
However, there has NEVER, implicitly or otherwise, been any sort of common agreement that society *must* endure advertising, regardless of degree of intrusion or method of delivery. When TV and radio were first brought on the air, the idea that commercial advertising would allow them to survive was not a given. The fact that it *did* allow them to survive happened to come to pass, but then again, there were no technological means for the public to manipulate the medium for their own benefit - for a while. However, there was no obligation for society to absorb content broadcast to them, and indeed when options became available, they were used.
When the first tape players became available, there *were* arguments and court cases regarding recording off the air, whether it was "legal" to listen while skipping recordings, etc. These arguments have all been had before. And consistently, it has been recognized that people hvae no inherent "obligation" to absorb content in any way other than however they see fit.
I have no obligation to read the ads in a magazine. I have no obligation not to turn down the dial on the radio when commercials come on. I have no obligation to sit by idly while pop-up windows dance across my desktop. THERE IS NO SUCH CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT, social or otherwise. If my actions, and the actions of millions of others, somehow cause those broadcasting content discomfort or loss, that's their problem, not mine.
I have no obligation to support *any* business model for anyone else. Indeed, if there were such an obligation, then society could never evolve or adapt to change, could it?
In short - that's just plain old horse manure.
Fuck your ads, and fuck you. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate this mentality that companies have in that "consumers" are expected to devote their lives to VIEWING ADS. Companies are just pissed that they can no longer make sheep out of those who acknowledge the problem and use wonderful tools like AdBlock.
Besides, if someone uses AdBlock, it means they don't WANT to view your ads, and if someone doesn't want to view your ads, guess what the chances are of them buying something from it? Oh, pretty slim to NONE.
The other end of the "Social Contract" (Score:5, Interesting)
This is where Adblock type technologies fulfill the other end of the "Social Contract" - letting me control my computer. If you don't want me viewing your content unless I view the ad also, fine, then give me a way to decline both. Come up with a way to deny the content if I don't view the advert, and instead just return a generic page stating, "This site uses {insert ad-type here}. In order to view the content, you must allow this type of advertising."
Then I can choose whether to accept the popup, or browse on to someone else.
The problem with this "social contract" theory is, I never *agreed* to this social contract. One can argue that by viewing the content, I am implicitly agreeing to it. But the problem is, until I actually go to a site, and either get a popup, or block it, I don't know what the 'terms' of this social contract are.
It's like saying you have to accept the terms of any contract, without even knowing those terms ahead of time.
I REFUSE to give up control over my computer to any site on the internet just because I followed a link to them.
Make money without bothering people, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
What I do click on are those text ads that Google places on the side of its page. This is actually a convenience for web browsing. First of all, it stays out of the way, doesn't take any time to download, provides useful information, and leads folks to products and services that might actually be useful.
Therefore, I am saying that I have no problem with web site owners making money off their creation, but please do it in a way that is comfortable for the readers, too.
Re:Somebody has to pay for the web sites you use (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
I would take it a step further. The thing advertisers don't get is that if someone is taking steps to ensure they don't see your ad then the chances of them actually buying anything from you had they seen your ad are absolutely miniscule.
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, most of the prepackaged adblock rules such as the one at http://www.geocities.com/pierceive/adblock [geocities.com] do block Google text ads.
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Interesting)
But of course the advertisers target the averages, so indeed, while you may take the time and download and install the blocker the average visitor will not do that. The big question then is "what is the chance that the average user/consumer will be able to block the ad?" I think it is called something like "reachability" in marketing.
Imagine that Microsoft will issue an autoamtic upgrade to its its next browser with the ad-blocking options and all turned "on". That would be a huge problem because now you have the average consumer that is not reachable anymore by traditional web marketing channel. Then MS can expect a large law suit filed by all the adevertisers since it made its target audience un-reachable. Then Microsoft will agree to get paid by the advertisers to disable their company from the list of "banned" ad sites, or it might argue that it was a user request and if the users pay for the product they should get what they want. So, the corollary is that ... lawers make a lot of money.
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now my filter has entries like:
I've never actually visited those sites--I don't see why I have to receive images from them, especially if they are offensive. (That's offensive [reference.com]as in "Of, relating to, or designed for attack." I still see Google Ads, I still see the ads on Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]. They aren't presented in a manner that obtrudes. That's what matters.
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long run, the brand names and products from the annoying ads "stuck" in people's minds long after they had forgotten the ad. The names had been detached from the sensation of anger and annoyance.
When standing in the supermarket aisle, looking at all of the laundry detergent choices, you will pick the one from the company that bombarded you with annoying ads, without realizing why.
You might remember the entertaining ad, but not the associated product.
Parent
Re:Unfortunately, they do sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but those of us who are competent enough to block the annoying ads are also probably intelligent enough not to buy anything from the advertisers even if we were forced to view the ads. So I don't think they're losing any sales. Though they probably are losing money, paying for our pageviews without us actually seeing the ad.
Parent
Re:Unfortunately, they do sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with ALL advertising. You get to watch TV because the suckers are buying everything Britney SPears puts out.
Parent
Rebates! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Unfortunately, they do sell (Score:5, Funny)
I propose the following method to get rid of spam:
1) Spam a lot of people.
2) When people respond to the spam wanting to buy things, get their address, go to their houses and kill them. I think we can all agree that this isn't murder so much as a mercy killing.
3) ???
4) Profit!
Parent
Re:Whu...? (Score:5, Funny)
<p>Research is pretty clear that text based ads have a much higher rate of success than any other form of internet ad.</p>
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
In summary: "Social contract" my ass.
I reserve the right to block ads. If they don't like it, they can charge me for the site. If it's worth it to me, I'll pay. If it's not, it's their loss.
Maybe they can follow my social contract: Don't make ads that cause epileptic seizures and bleeding ears and I won't be inclined to block them. How's that for a social contract?
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
In some cases, not being annoying should not be the advertisers's choice, and I think the Web is one of them. Google demonstrates quite clearly that inobtrusive ads MAKE YOUR SITE MORE POPULAR! This is a hugely important point, and one which advertisers are going to really hate having to face. It's not that they get to make a financial call on the return on investment, it's that the sites with all the users will soon be the sites with the least annoying ads. THEN polite wins.
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Get real. The idea behind advertsing is that it comes with the product. There is no requirement that you read it, and even if you did, there is no requirement that you respond to it. They are gambling that enough people will be affected positively by the ads that the increased revenue will offset the cost of delivering content. If it's being selfish and harmful to skip ads, it seems like you would think it should be illegal. Advertisements are enticement. If they don't entice, then it is the fault of the advertiser, not the customer.
Like I said before, if the content providers don't like me skipping their ads, then they can charge me for the site. No one is forcing them to "give away" their content. Why do you think they continue to do it, though? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
You see, it's called capitalism and it works both ways. If you can't stand the heat...
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Interesting)
I use provoxy at home on the network, we use firefox only on all pc's, I have an asterisk server that directs all telephone calls that are from outside my local dialing to voicemail and we have replay tv units at eact Television.
After 9 months of this, my daughter went to a friends house for a weekend. she came back horrified.. she said their internet was unuseable because of all the ad's and she could not stand watching television without having a 30 second skip, and she could not believe how many times they get interrupted with sales phonecalls.
she said and I do qoute... "having to deal with all those advertisments made me feel dirty."
and that really is what happens when you give yourself control over advertising in your home. you end up getting rid of the numbness of getting ablated with it constantly to the point that you actually notice it and become annoyed by it.
They can cry and throw hissy-fits all they want. There never EVER was a "social contract" to accept advertising, espically the crap-tasticular advertising they use today.
Parent
Lunacy of advertising. (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen. Does it mean that I am violating a social contract if I run a website and don't put advertising on it?
Advertisers made their own bed. I remember a few years ago, there was a website up that hosted clips of funny TV commercials. They had a rating system in place, and it was really cool. Then they were shut down, for rights infringement of some kind.
So let me get this straight - advertisers create commercials for their products, and they do so in such a way to get people to watch them. But then they shut down a website that was giving them FREE advertising of their products. It makes absolutely no sense to me, and speaks to the general lunacy of advertising in general.
Parent
Re:Annoying People != $$$ (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the advertising agencies I've worked with beleive that banner ads and intrusive advertising simply do not work. The craze over exposure (how many eyeballs can I get in front of, regardless of the experience) has been replaced with an emphasis on targetted and uesful advertising.
However, it is the companies doing the advertising themselves that are really keeping these ads going. I've heard multiple stories of product managers demanding obtrusive ads. A rather common quote is something along the lines of "If I'm paying for it, I expect people to see it". There is still a strong belief by non-experts (and a very natural one if you think about it) that advertising is all about volume (how many 'views') as opposed to the quality of the ad itself.
It's fascinating stuff really.
Parent
Re:Yes, it does (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading the content of a web page may not be a right, but they do NOT have the right to use up my bandwidth (and if I view over my cell phone, they are CHARGING me to do it).
Look, what they are doing is far worse than what we are doing. Why?because I did not sign anything/click on anything that said I agree to see their ads. Neither did any governemnt agency say, hey that's OK. They did NOT even warn me before making money off of my time that they were going to force me to see the ad.
Contracts are things BOTH people agree to. There is no "implicit contract" unless both sides are acting reasonable, and the advertisers ceased to act reasonable a LONG time ago.
By showing their web site to people WITHOUT getting agreement before hand to show me the ad, they accept the fact that I am under no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to see the ad. Instead the ad is treated just like any other content - it is something they are offering but NOT requireing me to see. I am perfectly within my rights to see some of the content on their pages but not all, and perfectly within my rights to see only the non-ad content.
Parent
Re:Yes, it does (Score:5, Insightful)
If you refuse to see the ads, you should find your content on another website.
I take it, then, that you will never:
I mean, you wouldn't want to be exploiting those providers by not viewing their advertisements, would you? Somehow, you're asserting that advertisers/providers have a right to force you to look at them.
Just like downloading music on a p2p system is a violation of copyright law.
What a broad generalization. Ever tried getting some legal tunes from indie artists? Or being in a country [canada.gc.ca] that allows downloading music?
You have no social right to listen to that music.
Yes, but your analogy is nothing close to that. A more appropriate analogy would be purchasing an album by $BAND and being forced to listen to $TRACK1_ADVERTISING_SPIEL_FOR_3:00 each time you attempted to play the disc.
Parent