Axel Springer Goes After iOS 9 Ad Blockers In New Legal Battlle (techcrunch.com) 223
An anonymous reader writes: Germany's Axel Springer, owner of newspapers like Bild and Die Welt, is pursuing legal action against the developers of Blockr, an ad blocker for iOS 9. Techcrunch reports: "In October, Axel Springer forced visitors to Bild to turn off their ad blockers or pay a monthly fee to continue using the site. Earlier this month, the publisher reported the success of this measure, saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay. 'The results are beyond our expectations,' said Springer chief exec Mathias Döpfner at the time. 'Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.' He also noted that the Bild.de website received an additional 3 million visits from users who could now see the ads in the first two weeks of the experiment going live."
Don't evolve your business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Litigate instead!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Don't evolve your business model (Score:5, Interesting)
Precious little, in a while. There's more and more support to the idea that any device to be connected to the internet will have to be"audited" for "potentially harmful" software and "certified" by "authorities". I know it sounds unacceptable right now but give it time and everybody will simply shrug and say "it's for our own safety and besides, what can we do?"
Re: (Score:2)
Precious little, in a while. There's more and more support to the idea that any device to be connected to the internet will have to be"audited" for "potentially harmful" software and "certified" by "authorities". I know it sounds unacceptable right now but give it time and everybody will simply shrug and say "it's for our own safety and besides, what can we do?"
I heard pretty much the exact same thing when the "I love you" virus was making the rounds, just saying...
Give up PCs? Not likely... (Score:2)
I think you forgot all the people who use general purpose PCs to create the content that the smartphone/tablet brigade so enjoy consuming. Oh, and almost the entire business world.
If any government were foolish enough to attempt something like what you describe, enough people and businesses who wanted/needed to use technology sensibly would relocate that the economic damage alone would probably bring down that government at the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, are you still thinking it will not happen?
Yes, I'm still thinking it will not happen. For one thing, it's completely unrealistic that governments would co-ordinate such a move effectively in that global economy you mentioned. It takes them years to put together a big trade deal, with plenty of controversy and opposition in many cases. Heck, they still haven't managed to close the gaping tax loopholes used by multinationals, despite every government except the tax havens saying for years that they want to.
Even at a single country level, huge amounts
Re: (Score:2)
The foil, it is wrapped around this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we still have Microsoft in the game with Continuum around the corner.
Tablet, phone, PC, device, all in one.
All of them general purpose computers.
Re: (Score:2)
If it means APK will finally not be able to distribute his crapware, it might just be worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine that the argument will be copyright infringement by the app developer. Taking the Bild web site, making some changes to it and then presenting it to the user in exchange for the $0.99 price of the app. Essentially they see it as taking a copy of their free newspaper, cutting the ads out with scissors and selling it on for a profit.
Of course, it's a stupid argument. The web doesn't work that way. They could replace their web site with a PDF and maybe have the beginnings of a point, but HTML is not
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's a stupid argument. The web doesn't work that way.
Even if you had a third-party server doing the ad removal it shouldn't work that way, because you are permitted to transfer modified copies of copyrighted works so long as you transfer all copies, modified or not, when you transfer the original.
Re: (Score:2)
... because you are permitted to ...
It's not even clear which country's law applies. General statements like that are most certainly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not necessarily permitted to do so. I can not, for example, take a book and modify it a little bit and then transfer copies of it even if I include the original. It's rather subjective and it's hard to say but I suspect that this will not fall into the "fair use" case much like it wouldn't likely succeed as a fair-use case if they stripped out ads and packaged it anew with ads of their own or similar things.
This is the German courts, however. No telling how they'll go. It does have the required bits
Re: (Score:2)
You can't buy a book, write in the front cover "From the library of KGIII", then later on sell it on to a used book shop?
This is what you just said as far as I can understand it, so I am not sure how that would be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's taking it to an extreme level and you missed the finer points... Intentionally? Willfully? Did you intentionally skip the part about fair use and retaining certain rights?
Also, note that it is more like buying a book, writing "From the library of KGIII" and then making multiple copies and selling those. The two are NOT the same.
Sheesh... I know you're smarter than this. ;-) I *do* hold you to a higher standard than most but, c'mon now!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about what you are "permitted to run". The question is whether users can access content in a way that deprives the content creator of any source of revenue. It's not some horrible crime that a company isn't going to give away their content completely for free, anymore than it's a crime that most people would like compensation for doing work.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's not really the question; it's just posed that way to incite an emotional response.
I do agree that companies are under no obligation to provide websites for free. However, if a company does provide a website, I don't feel there is any reasonable assumption that someone visiting a site will request any particular resource or follow any particular link on that website. So crying foul if someone visits a site but doesn't request some ad resource is a little disingenuous.
If a site really wants eithe
Re: (Score:2)
You mean evolve to a paid subscription model or such?
Because that would be completely novel for a newspaper!
Also; they're still using that business model.
Any ideas as to the direction in which they should evolve?
Pay and you still see ads (Score:3)
The problem is that the well is irreversibly poisoned.
You can pay for access to the site, and you still get bombarded with ads. From the point of view of the those running the site, they already got your money. Then if they get a bit of extra profit from the advertisers, all the better.
Same if you pay to have any data stored in the atmospheric water vapor formations and kept "private". It will still be sold to 3rd parties, except that it will command higher prices.
"Hey, this guy is paying to keep your nose
Re: (Score:2)
There is an alternative model: paywalls. History has shown that most people won't pay for this shitty, near worthless content though. Only specialist papers like the Financial Times managed to do okay with paywalls.
That's the basic problem that all generic news outlets face. The same news is widely available for free elsewhere. The only attractions are things like some included soft porn*, some opinion pieces that match the reader's existing view and give them comfort, and the format. None of those are part
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While true there's the caveat as you're utilizing property, namely a computer, that doesn't belong to you. I'm of the mind that they're free to say that I can't access their site unless I disable my adblocking software. It's their property and they should be able to set the terms and conditions for accessing that property. I am, of course, free to abide by those choices or simply press the back button.
Much like they've no right to force you to run code, you've no right to access their property without their
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the mind that they're free to say that I can't access their site unless I disable my adblocking software. It's their property and they should be able to set the terms and conditions for accessing that property. I am, of course, free to abide by those choices or simply press the back button.
That is, of course, one option. However, I'm of the mind that by setting up a server on the public Internet which responds to arbitrary unauthenticated HTTP requests, they've effectively given permission to access their site to everyone on the Internet, regardless of any claims to the contrary in their terms of service.
If they want to enforce terms and conditions, they are welcome to require users to register and log in before presenting any content.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree that that *should* be the case but this is, still, private property with the various rights associated with it as well as copyright. This is, of course, open to debate as to changing it but, until those are altered, they may have legal standing. I'm not sure where I'd fall in the opinion range as to changing property rights but I can see changing copyright laws. Even if the store is open, they can still insist you neither take stuff that doesn't belong to you AND insist you wear a shir
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree that that *should* be the case but this is, still, private property with the various rights associated with it ...
I don't see this as a property-rights issue. You're sending them a message with a request for one or more URLs; they're sending messages back with the content. At no point do you have possession of or control over any of their property. Their property is doing exactly what they deliberately programmed it to do: send their content to any arbitrary unauthenticated user on the Internet who requests it. If they did require authentication and you claimed to be someone else in order to gain access then a case cou
Re:Don't evolve your business model (Score:4, Insightful)
Fool me once, shame on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Unless the advertising industry can 100% guarantee safety or warrant and accept 100% liability for repair of systems infected by drive-by exploits, I'll block ads. And due to overly complex systems implemented by too many poor coders and poorly tested leading to a never ending stream of 0-day attacks, this won't end. Google is making noise about trying, but its too late...
Re:Don't evolve your business model (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the lame excuse about intrusive ads does not apply here, according to TFS. Either pay a subscription fee and eliminate ads or view ads. I guess most freeloaders don't want to pay for the subscription or view ads.
Sure it does. A lot of people wouldn't mind the ads if they're not going to hijack their machine and would turn off adblocking software. But the content that said sites offer, do not promote a persons desire to pay for it. Especially since large numbers of news services simply use wire content to fill out their pages. That site in question doesn't offer any unique content that people can't find elsewhere.
The business model is broken, because companies don't want to take responsibility for the ads. And users are refusing ads, because they're the most common source of machine hijacking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that people overwhelmingly view the ads is a pretty solid piece of evidence that the world isn't how many of us wish it to be.
The example here is a newspaper... chances are people are not turning off their ad-blocker for just any old site they are picking and choosing the ones they trust or are willing to spend the bandwidth on if they are using something with a bandwidth cap.
Re: (Score:2)
That comment comes from the newspaper. The more likely scenario is that the people running ad blockers just went to a different news site as there is nothing special about these news web sites, they don't even have independent content.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is not to take use their content without adhering to their terms but to simply not use their content. This is not a difficult or situational-ethics topic. It's pretty cut and dry. They don't have a right to run code on your machine. You do not have a right to their content.
As such, a couple of things are in play...
They can say, if you want to access B then you must allow A and C. They then can serve up the content if you allow that content to run.
You can say, I do not want to allow C. You can t
Re: (Score:2)
There is the problem if you must insist that users disable their ad-blocker in order to access your services you must also be liable for any advertising presented. If it contains malicious software then you are liable for the damages.
A good business would have tasteful ads free of malicious software, they would remind people that the service they are using is ad based when detecting an ad-blocker, and also give them the opportunity to have an ad free paid subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the business model for "gimme gimme gimme"? Adblockers have existed before all the JavaScript tracking. Even if it were a simple static image you'd bitch that it was take bandwidth, and even if it were just text you'd bitch it was taking up space on your monitor.
Tracking is just a scape-goat, the real issue is people are self-entitled and too used to getting things 'for free'.
Well first, you can put down the weed. Second, you can then realize that my comment didn't have anything to do with tracking. That, is something completely different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What else do you call a PC/cell/laptop/tablet that has malware installed and becomes a part of a botnet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ads do this quite often, it is called a drive by exploit.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/... [nytimes.com]
It happens quite a lot. Most of your malware infestations come from drive bys, thought there are other exploit vectors as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I never voluntarily turned off Slashdot's ads previously. I used to run no-script, but now that every page requires Javascript to work, I ended up removing it and replacing it with an ad-blocker. Why? It's 100% safety driven. You see how infected ads are the prime way of infecting computers (straight Javascript is pretty safe these days), and since my computer is critically important to my work as an independent contractor, I just can't risk it.
For many years I lived without Flash-related content, becau
Re: (Score:3)
I have no problems with subscription fees. I just don't subscribe to them. So?
Re: (Score:2)
Micropayments? (Score:2)
One potential solution to this would be an efficient micropayment system, but unfortunately that seems to be the idea that eternally "has potential". I don't know what's holding it back in reality. Maybe it's financial regulations in different countries, maybe it's pressure from the existing payment industries, maybe it's that no-one has found UI with sufficiently low friction yet, or maybe too many people just want everything for free to give a critical mass of early adopters.
In any case, I'm actually kind
Re: (Score:2)
One problem I would have with micropayments at random sites is how the payment is made. I'm not going to give every site my credit card info, I use Paypal for what I get off ebay, but wouldn't want to use that on every random site either. I don't use Bitcoins, Appple Pay, Google Wallet, or any of the other electronic payment programs, and I'm not going to start just to access those same sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the payment mechanism would be the big question.
Personally, I suspect anything more complicated than 1-2 clicks using a preconfigured payment tool that it integrated into the browser is likely to be too much friction.
On the other hand, if you could actually have a system where, say, you get to read the first section of a long form article and then there's a button you can click to pay them x cents to immediately access the rest via that payment tool, I could see that working and I think you could build
Re: Micropayments? (Score:3)
Well, part of it is that even a small payment can still incur a psychologically large cost. If each user post here on /. cost one cent to read, would you want to have them load automatically? Probably not, many of them are not worth that much, and you could quickly run up a bill of a few hundred dollars a year on that sort of thing from this site alone. So instead you'd have to take more time to think about what was worth spending even a little on, because it adds up and the price doesn't really match the v
Re: (Score:2)
Well, part of it is that even a small payment can still incur a psychologically large cost.
That's certainly true in my experience. It's probably the second thing you rapidly discover when building your first B2C web site, right after "If you build it, they probably still won't come."
I think the main requirements for a micropayment system to be successful would probably be simplicity and transparency. Anything that requires lots of interactions, like paying x cents for each and every post on a site like Slashdot, is doomed before it even starts because it's far too much hassle. On the other hand,
Re: (Score:2)
Another potential solution would be some specialized web extensions designed specifically for the needs of advertisers. Essentially, instead of granting a third-party site blanket permission to load and execute arbitrary Javascript (insanely dangerous, since it can do anything), this mechanism only allows extremely specialized content to be loaded from a third-party - just enough to load a static image and enough smarts to check for a view or a click, and one that respects the "do not track" flag.
No animat
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that ad blocking is also a safety issue. I have only ever been hit by a virus once that I'm aware of. It was a zero-day in a well-known plug-in, on a system that was fully patched and running AV software, navigating a big name site you would have expected to be completely safe, via a popular link aggregator/discussion site.
I now have a 100% ad-blocking policy. I don't turn the blocker off for anyone, and if a site doesn't like that then I say fair enough and go elsewhere. I have some sympat
Re: (Score:2)
Target audience (Score:4, Insightful)
Congrats. You now have a group of people seeing your ads that wanted to not see them so bad they bought an app. I'm sure this business model will work out for you in the long run.
Re:Target audience (Score:4, Interesting)
It didn't work out for the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star here in Canada, so you'd be right it didn't work. Then again, news papers are bleeding print subs and online viewership everywhere. Mainly because the media is either shilling for their buddies w/o disclosing it, or people can find exactly the same news on 3 or 4 other sites, that don't have a paywall of some kind.
Re: (Score:2)
It's both. The average "newspaper" (more accurate would be "rough, ink-bleeding TP") contains paid ads thinly disguised as articles, shilling for their favorite party and to make that mix go down a little more smoothly they sprinkle in some copy/pasted press agency messages.
Care to inform me what anyone needs that kind of "newspaper" for? Especially online where you can't even use it as TP.
Re: (Score:2)
Lining bird cages of course. But some papers actually do have a good opinion/columnist/consumer affairs section, and for some newspapers that's their only redeeming part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats. You now have a group of people seeing your ads that wanted to not see them so bad they bought an app. I'm sure this business model will work out for you in the long run.
Doesn't matter to him. He knows it's all BS, but companies are willing to pay him hard cash for eyes on their ads. Doesn't matter if those eyes actually purchase anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You are assuming too much. They've marketed that number at you.
saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay.
They didn't say those people turned off their ad blockers and they didn't say those people paid for a subscription.
What they said was that 'when you can't view our site with an ad blocker, people with ad blockers stopped viewing our site' ... meaning they probably just lost all of those readers completely. They simply no longer bother viewing the site at all.
And the fact that they lost all those readers is why they are now suing.
They c
Re: (Score:2)
They have a group of people who appreciate their site so much that they bought an app to improve the experience. It stands to reason that the same people - at least some of them - might be prepared to pay for a subscription.
I don't see why not. It's not like the "customers" they lose are bringing in any revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment was addressed not to Axel Springer, but to the advertisers, who now have more ad "impressions", but probably no more sales than before. They're advertising to people who were willing to pay money to avoid seeing their ads. Those users were doing the advertisers a favor by removing themselves from the viewer pool. Rather than simply not being seen, those ad impressions will now create negative associations for their brands.
Unfortunately there's a delay in the feedback, allowing sites to profit fr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I would. It would show how many people actually want THIS paper enough to pay for it and how many just want news.
I have a hunch how this would end.
Re: (Score:2)
It worked for the print version for decades.
Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts) (Score:3)
Speaking of ads, SlashDot, what's with these brain-dead, demographic-curdling "paid posts" you're running? The one I see on your home page now, and I swear I am not shitting thee, reads:
>> Poor, misunderstood cloud computing. As it turns out, most Americans have no idea what it actually is. (Hint: it has nothing to do with the sky.)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you seeing that?
I don't see anything like that on my system. Viewing in Chrome on a linux box running uBlock.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a screenshot https://anonimag.es/i/f5eda892... [anonimag.es]
Re:Speaking of crappy ads (paid posts) (Score:4, Funny)
ha ha! I see your game... a clever new way to get people with adblockers to look at adds!
Well! You'll not fool me! I'm not a cat!
I'll be releasing "xxxJohnBoyxxx (565205) blocker next week!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yuck. I must be blocking it somewhere but I'm not sure where. I had ghostery as well and that is blocking a chunk but even with ublock, ghostery and flashblock disabled I'm still not seeing them.
Re: (Score:2)
slashdot probably doesnt know either.
they dont know what ads get displayed where.
which is why people use adblockers. for example, every now and then the mobile version of slashdot has ads that auto-open hoax update pages to install crap. I think it's because slashdot doesnt check what their page looks from different countries.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I am seeing - https://anonimag.es/image/nlt [anonimag.es]
I've left it so you can see the plugins
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they show up in the RSS feed either. I pretty much never go to /.'s homepage anymore. ttrss [tt-rss.org] grabs the summary for me, and if it's interesting, I'll click through. It and Full-Text RSS [fivefilters.org] have also been useful for some sites with broken layout that won't show up properly in desktop browsers anymore (National Review, I'm looking at you).
Re: (Score:2)
Poor, misunderstood cloud computing. As it turns out, most Americans have no idea what it actually is. (Hint: it has nothing to do with the sky.)
Huh? I thought cloud computing was basically "Hot Vapor", i.e. promising people the sky and then not delivering?
two thirds of users... (Score:2, Interesting)
LEFT the site, he means... the extra traffic was from the publicity in the media, on slashdot, reddit, digg, etc ('wtf is this site? never heard of it before', 'does it really block adblock?' -- no it first discriminates against those with scripting disabled.. scripts are what they use to target adblockers, browse with css and scripting off it sorta works).. and that extra traffic has long since faded... so lets stir up another rats nest and controversy and target mobile users because any publicity is bette
Lying with statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay ... Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.
Did they? Or did they simply not come back?
Of course with the developer tools built into browsers these days, it only takes a few clicks to delete the nag layer and get to the underlying content. I wonder how they count me in their statistics?
Not so simple (Score:4, Informative)
It used to be easy to read the content off the html – no developer tools needed! Today, many websites are constructed to not serve the underlying content until the you've been served the ad.
By the way, I don't think there's anything wrong with what Springer is doing. Readers can pay cash, or pay by viewing ads. They can also choose not to read.
Re: (Score:2)
There is another problem with this method. If his website is hard to access or hostile, people won't link to it. He could be losing a lot of traffic because of that.
Just another ignorant user. (Score:2)
so... (Score:2)
Earlier this month, the publisher reported the success of this measure, saying that the proportion of readers using ad blockers dropped from 23% to the single digits when faced with the choice to turn off the software or pay. 'The results are beyond our expectations,'
So 23% of these sensible people left and went to a different mediocre news source? Hard to know without the denominator available. But that's the nature of modern mediocre journalism.
"the choice to turn off the software or pay" (Score:2)
Nah, I'd go with option 3 - find a different site.
Maybe the next generation of ad blockers will download the ad content, let the site think the ad was shown, and then just not display it.
Plain text ads like google uses would be fine.
Popovers? Animated ads? Anything that covers or obscures other content? No thanks.
Not showing ads (Score:3, Interesting)
Various adblockers already have the option to load but not display ads. It's a waste of bandwidth, but likely defaults this measure and at least reduces the annoyances/infections.
Adblocker blocker blocker (Score:2)
Just they wait until I release my Adblocker blocker blocker app. Then you'll be able to see the site again. At least until they deploy an Adblocker blocker blocker blocker which I guess will be inevitable.. However I have an idea about how to deal with that...
required reading (Score:5, Informative)
What you need to know about BILD:
It's the most popular (by far) newspaper "for the lower classes" in Germany. It is massively influential on public opinion, and thus required reading for politicians and such. Several german chancellors are known to have checked the BILD headlines first thing in the morning to know what the people will wake up to.
It is also rumours to be funded by the CIA, at least during its early, post-war years, and to this day is fanatically pro-american, conservative and anti-communist.
With that in mind, you understand who the readership is and why they are more likely than, say, the /. crowd, to turn off their adblockers.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads are malware vectors, period (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recently, they had to give me a new hard drive on my work computer, and I had a virgin install of Firefox (no adblocker). I was on the web while waiting on work, and the anti-virus warned of a possible virus from one of the sites (might have been /. but not sure). The adblocker is back on.
How can these people not know how to handle PR? (Score:2)
Litigating in this case can only do harm; best case scenario they win, and (app store) adblockers get removed. Who's gonna say "hey, I wanted an adblocker, but this company sued them out of existence, so I'll keep using their services"? In the end, will they sue people for not going to their site anymore after pissing them off?
Learn from print media (Score:2)
Intermixing ads with content is bloody infuriating, especially when it's animated in some form. Newspapers for centuries sold ads which were contained separate from the content; a buyer interested in the specials at the local market would flip through, it was seriously win win. A mild neutral link to deals on offer from advertisers achieves the same goal, and if the advertiser is relevant to my interests, I'd actually click on it. I've bought tons of stuff from promotions, e.g. 60" TV promoted locally, and
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis (Score:2)
I hate those guys.
So, what's the problem? (Score:2)
The only real issue I see is the risk of malicious or compromised ads. An issue that only exists because the responsibility for the content of the ads is unclear, so everyone involved says it isn't them. Fortunately, if the issue is pressed, it will be resolved. This is how it gets pressed.
Axel Springer: "Boo hoo, poor widdle me!" (Score:2)
Then:
Users: hey can you please stop spamming us with ads so much?
Advertisers: screw you, here's your ad
Now:
Advertisers: hey please don't use stuff to block our ads, thanks
Users: screw you
Useless (Score:2)
" 'Over two-thirds of the users concerned switched off their adblocker.'"
Yes, and we copy-pasted all the blocked sites in our router's blacklist instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Jen may have been looking at bild.de here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's the most interesting part.
And how much of the Anti-AdBlock measures were circumvented within a few minutes?
Most of Anti-AdBlock is easily circumvented, and if it can't be circumvented the site goes off the list of sites worth to visit.
There are a few exceptions of sites where AdBlock isn't needed because the ads are minor and the value of the site is high, but the papers Bild and Die Welt aren't on that list.
Re: (Score:2)
If those sites weren't off your list in the first place...sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
The bull the average Axel Springer tabloid offers ain't even worth the bandwidth to check whether your adblocker works.
Re: (Score:2)
But what does the fox say?
Re: (Score:2)