CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39198608,00.htm

read... this is absolutely HILARIOUS, the bottom line is that Doubleclick, an online advertisement company, held a press conference to ask people to not block their ads... it is absolutely rediculous

He said if a similar tool could be produced for newspapers, it would not be accepted by consumers.

"You'd go to your local corner shop and buy the daily paper, and you'd have these large holes where the ads were.

"You'd somehow feel like your 25 cents had not gotten full value," he said.

yes, like we buy a newspaper to read the ads as well... and ads don't make newspapers longer to load and aren't all flash and say "click here"

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:yes, like we buy a newspaper to read the ads as well... and ads don't make newspapers longer to load and aren't all flash and say "click here"

>_> Or crash your computer, or pile up in annoying little heaps on your taskbar, or eject the CD you had in your CD-drive...

Kokoro Daisuke wrote:>_> Or crash your computer, or pile up in annoying little heaps on your taskbar, or eject the CD you had in your CD-drive...

Exactly. My computer is old and can't take these evil things.

Speaking of ads...has anyone noticed the incredibly irritating video ads on AIM lately? Ugh.

yep. Mute them once, and they stay muted. end of story there

You guys are right, but then again.

It's not fair and legal to do that to ads.

Ads are what run most websites. They're the only way the website can stay up, it's not like anyone's going to donate $1 with PayPal.

These guys are paying money to put their ads on these websites, and that money IS being wasted, They're being cheated because people are not abe to see their horribly annoying Ads.

Of cours I'm a hypocrite, see I hate ads, and do not have ads on any of my websites. Rather than Blocking them, i work around them.

ShiroiHikari wrote:Exactly. My computer is old and can't take these evil things.

Speaking of ads...has anyone noticed the incredibly irritating video ads on AIM lately? Ugh.

thats why I use trillian ^_^

Volt wrote:You guys are right, but then again.

It's not fair and legal to do that to ads.

Ads are what run most websites. They're the only way the website can stay up, it's not like anyone's going to donate $1 with PayPal.

These guys are paying money to put their ads on these websites, and that money IS being wasted, They're being cheated because people are not abe to see their horribly annoying Ads.

Of cours I'm a hypocrite, see I hate ads, and do not have ads on any of my websites. Rather than Blocking them, i work around them.

as long as the website gets money by hosting these ads, than they get their money... wether we see them or not, the ads are still there. Thus the website gets their money

A banner or two on a website is not a problem. A ridiculously large banner made out of Flash and makes noises when you're listening to quality music is annoying. A 'tracking' program installed via ActiveX flaws in IE to track the user is down-right privacy invasion. Worse if that program makes the whole system unstable.

So, if it's just a banner or something I let it be. If it's a Flash based one that wastes my clock cycles and makes annoying sounds I block it. I don't use IE, so never get spyware.

Oh yeah, just for note, cookies are NOT evil, they're completely legitimate way of tracking users (CAA uses them, how do you think you can use that "always login" feature?). Adaware and SB-S&D teams are wasting their time deleting cookies from said evil companies.

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:thats why I use trillian ^_^



as long as the website gets money by hosting these ads, than they get their money... wether we see them or not, the ads are still there. Thus the website gets their money

Well ... not necessarily. If it's a sponsorship issue, yes, but most ads are sold by impression or (less commonly) click-thru. If the ad never appears -- based on the fact that no one downloads the actual image, Flash applet, etc. -- then it does not generate an impression, and no money is made.

Obviously, a straight sponsor partner is a different beast because it's an ever present ad. But most ads are not sold that way.

I think what this allows people to do is vote with their software about the kinds of advertising they'll tolerate. Companies that can't do innovative advertising or can't advertise at all without irritating people will end up in the dustbin, and that's business. Notice how the TV commercial's days are numbered too because of TiVO, but instead of whinging and whining about it, the execs are using new advertising conduits like product placement and so on. That, too, is business.

oh yeah, i forgot about "clicking" gets them money... weirdness

Not just clicking, but simply logging that the image file even gets downloaded in the first place.

But I still think that Doubleclick et al are off base anyway. If their brand of advertising is something that annoys people and/or can be shut off, it's to their advantage to find a new way to advertise instead of whining publicly. I think there would be about zero sympathy to their imagined plight -- especially based on the response of people in this thread.

Well said, oh wise Shooby. ^^; There's is no sympathy here for those "poor" pop-up ad companis. I've got nothing against business and advertising, but when the said business and advertising screws with my computer and invades my privacy, then there's definitely something wrong. It's as ridiculous as your old car breaking down when you drive past a billboard ad, or having TV commercials scan your retinas to determine your identity and general demographic information. Okay...well...maybe it's not THAT ridiculous, but you know what I mean.

Volt wrote:It's not fair and legal to do that to ads.

It's perfectly legal. I can choose what I want to see and what I don't. If I don't want the sports section of my newspaper, I am perfectly free to pull it out and throw it in the recycling pile before sitting down to read. I can look at the source of a web page and choose what elements I want to display, and what I don't. There's no law that says that ads must be shown, and if there was it would quickly be shot down by the courts.

Also, were I intent on doing nefarious deeds, I might start by using adservers like the aforementioned doubleclick to infect large numbers of systems. Knowing that, I'd rather not leave that avenue open for my evil twin to infect my computer.

Kaligraphic wrote:It's perfectly legal.

How much you want to bet? Spiderman the movie had a lawsuit because they CG'ed out the current ads at Times Square, with different ones.

When a corporation PAYS $$$$$ to put ads into a product, if those ads are tampered with or removed, That is illegal, and unlawful

No one is sueing yet because there is little impact on ad revenue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you are the one, who is trying to get poeple to come to your website, by paying money for ads. You won't really feel this issue hit home.

Until you are the one who Works at an Ad Agency, to support your family and feed your kids, you probably won't care. Ads run the world, without ads, there would be no business, New York would not be New York, Tokyo would not be Tokyo, and a heck of a lot of people would loose their jobs by getting layed off, because the ads that they make are not being shown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes ads are annoying. But only the ones that make noises and talk to you. A nice well placed ad, that stays quiet, never hurt anyone. It's only a few kb, and it's not like it takes up the whole page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only reason we are here is because big a GIANT ad agency called Google/Yahoo, lead you here to CAA.

Ads can be your freind or your nightmare, but we must learn to live with them. Rather than Simply blocking them, which doesn't work because eventually the technology will evolve and ads will grow more and more annoying, we should learn to compromise, and make an agreement.

No more pop-ups.
Yes banners
Yes banners with sound, only if you click on them or roll your mouse over.
No banners that use trackers.

the ads are NOT tampered and they are NOT removed... because the ads are still THERE.... but WE can't SEE it, so the ads are there, but they are not making ANY money...

and I dont give a WHOOPLOAD of fecal matter if its legal or not, I DO NOT LIKE ADS!!!! SO THERE! MWAHAHAHHA *blocks ads*

Mr. SmartyPants wrote:the ads are NOT tampered and they are NOT removed... because the ads are still THERE.... but WE can't SEE it, so the ads are there, but they are not making ANY money...

that's tampering.

NO ITS NOT!!! BECAUSE IT'S THERE!!! AAAHHHHHHH a-hem

how can it be tampering? Is the ad still there? Yes. Has the Ad changed? No! IT'S NOT TAMPERING! We're only blocking the ad for ourselves, not for others. Simply having something to make ads not appear (when they are still there) is NOT tampering

If you CANNOT CLICK it. it's not there.

If you can't DRIVE a car, it's not there. If you can't drink the apple juice, the apple juice isn't there. It's as good as gone.

Then I guess downloading MP3s from Napster isn't illegal either? Since we're only downloading them for ourselves.

You're wrong volt! The apple juice is there, you just don't see it! It's behind a locked up safe and its INVISIBLE! The car is invisible and locked in a garage and you can't get it! Thats why i can't...

Also I can't drive a car, but I see it right outside on the driveway! HAH!

And downloading mp3s is different, thats stealing

look, the ad is there, hosted by the website/server whatever, but we blocked ourselves from it

same with a car, the car is in the guarage, but we closed the garage so people can't see it! Nor drive it! Cause it's LOCKED with thousands of combinations to unlock that only God knows

Also I can't drive a car, but I see it right outside on the driveway! HAH!

Your metaphors don't make sense?! Cars are for driving, they are an experience service.

Ads are a visual Service. If someone can't see them, they can't click them. Therefor by Blocking them all together, you are stealing money, it's just as bad as downloading MP3s. You are not allowing the Marketing Group to show their advertisements, and you are potentially not clicking on the ads, thus NOT supporting the site.

The only reason pop-up- blockers were first invented was so that Perverts can surf Warez and porn sites, without interuption. Been there, done that. The only sites that force you to use pop-up blockers are
1) Porn sites
2) Porn sites
3) Warez sites
4) Porn sites
5) Rarely any others
6) Porn sites
7) Download sites

I run FireFox without the Pop-up blocker, because I never need it, the greatest amount of pop-ups i've ever goten was 2. And I ended up being interested and clicked a few here and there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is Today everyone wants something for Free.

They want Quality content and High speed servers, for the price of nothing. ADVERTISEMENT is cost of this freedom, If people weren't so selfish and actually Donated $1 of Paypal money to their favorite site every month or so, we wouldn't have ADS.

NOTHING is free... Nothing. There's a price to pay for every service, Jesus Payed with his Life, And we are paying by having to look at horrible ad banners and pop-ups.

INVISIBLE!

This ain't no Science Fiction novel. There no such thing as invisible, Bring me back an invisible Stealth suit, and i'll shut up.

paying 50 bucks a month to our ISP ain't exactally free

im not stealing money, im just preventing some really rich company called "doubleclick" into making money... volt its the same as like a man getting paid to punch you, (lets say hypothetically that punching people and harassment was legal) but if you have like a anti-punch shield with +5 to punch-protection, he can't make money... aww poor him volt... why aren't you letting him punch you? HUH? HE GOT A FAMILY TO SUPPORT YOU KNOW! SO STOPPING HIM FROM PUNCHING YOU IS ILLEGAL!

same thing

RU#*)@UR*(#)U@RI)

You are such a Smarty PAnts!!!!!

- ISP = Internet Serivice. ISP does not pay websites' hosting fees
- Getting punched, and having to look at ads is *SURPRISE!!!* two different things.
- I give up....

Fine, Mr. Smarty Pants, you win.

Ads are from the devil, Lets block all of them. Every single ad in the world should be blocked. When your favorite websites go offline, due to hosting costs, and no ad revenue, call me, so i can laugh infinately into the phone

yeah i know... but we... still pay.... okay yeah that doesnt count

okay fine... a suckerpunch! The guy tells you in advance that he going to punch you... and ties you to a pole and then punches you

What does that have to do with Ads?!?!?!

Ahhhh1h11!!!!!!! Mr. Smarty Pants!!! Your Random Spontanious Mental Concepts confuse me, there's no method to your madness. You make no sense!!! We're going to have to get you a talk show.

Volt wrote:Ahhhh1h11!!!!!!! Mr. Smarty Pants!!! Your Random Spontanious Mental Concepts confuse me, there's no method to your madness. You make no sense!!! We're going to have to get you a talk show.

my work here is done

Okay, you're watching a movie. An ad comes on the screen, and you hold your hand over it. Is that illegal?

You say removing ads is illegal? Well, let us just use Doubleclick's own example of a newspaper. The ads subsidize much of the cost of producing a newspaper, yet it is perfectly legal to cut the ads out of your own copy. Do you ever throw away junk mail? Companies paid to have that put in your box. Do you ever go fix a snack during a television commercial? Companies paid to put that on your box. How about this - have you ever decided not to wear branded clothing?

When I view a web page, my browser asks the server for the page, and the server gives me some text. Yes, text. I can then decide whether I want to see all images, no images, or some images. Just because there's a url for an image doesn't mean that I have to retrieve that image.

I can also write in the margins of my books if I so choose. I can even black out large portions that I don't want. I can tamper with my own books all I want.

Except that this is more akin to skipping the photo inserts in the middle of a book than to actually tampering with the book. And if I lack the authority not to view, then what's keeping ad companies from forcibly advertising in my house? Oh, right, the law.

Property rights are not strengthened simply because someone paid for placement. Thus, the stylesheet is as protected as the ads. How about this: I've got a line or two of text in my sig. I will pretend that it is an ad and proceed to sue everybody who is reading with sigs disabled.

Oh. Wait. I can't do that. Hmm. You know what? Neither can Doubleclick.

Kaligraphic, you ROCK.

Just so you know.

You know, I can't think of anything to add, really. Kaligraphic said it all.

This is akin to Tokyopop suing everyone who uses a black sharpie marker to black out the nudity in the manga they sell.

Quite retarded indeed.

kaemmerite wrote:This is akin to Tokyopop suing everyone who uses a black sharpie marker to black out the nudity in the manga they sell.

o_O when did THAT occur?

Doubleclick uses tracking cookies and flash ads that take a long time to load and interrupt normal internet usage, volt... So, yeah, how about you idle your fingers and stop trying to act indignant when there is actually a valid point to be made here. Flash ads are stupid and annoying. Anything I could do to avoid them entirely is worth my effort and I wouldn't want them to stop me from doing that.

I don't care much about href animated banner ads, provided they're small in disk usage... Doubleclick hosts ads that extend into the webpage, make sounds, pop-up, stay on in stealth mode (which has NOTHING to do with advertising except to track your usage and try to target you more specifically), and worst of all, track. You can advertise without all of that.

The worst are video ads. Who really wants a streaming video to be chomping up their bandwidth? Really sucks for those with BW caps.

Bobtheduck wrote: volt... So, yeah, how about you idle your fingers and stop trying to act indignant when there is actually a valid point to be made here.

Volt's too lazy to seperate with quotes, my reply is in BOLD

Okay, you're watching a movie. An ad comes on the screen, and you hold your hand over it. Is that illegal?
Nope, technically that would mean there's an object in the way, there are technicalities that cannot be accounted for

You say removing ads is illegal? Well, let us just use Doubleclick's own example of a newspaper. The ads subsidize much of the cost of producing a newspaper, yet it is perfectly legal to cut the ads out of your own copy.Funny thing is, by cutting them out you are looking at them, even for a slight second, I hope so. Wouldn't want you to cut your finger off. And you're Once again missing the point.

The Newspaper company PRINTED out the ads,
They are done with their job, If the ads are physcially on the paper,
THEN you BUY the paper,
THEN you Remove the ads, that's fine

Do you ever throw away junk mail? Companies paid to have that put in your box.
As long as it is Printed out ON the paper,
and it ends up IN your mailbox, you have the right to do whatever you want with them

Do you ever go fix a snack during a television commercial?
Walking away, Looking away, ignoring an ad is completely different than using software to completely make the ad dissapear.

Companies paid to put that on your box. How about this - have you ever decided not to wear branded clothing?
Have you ever decided to just go to an Adless Website?

When I view a web page, my browser asks the server for the page, and the server gives me some text. Yes, text. I can then decide whether I want to see all images, no images, or some images. Just because there's a url for an image doesn't mean that I have to retrieve that image.

I can also write in the margins of my books if I so choose. I can even black out large portions that I don't want. I can tamper with my own books all I want.
Becasue YOU BOUGHT THEM, and your OWN them, you do not OWN nor PAY nor SUPPORT, nor DONATE, nor CONTRIBUTE, for any online Content.

Online Content is stored on their Server, They own it, they pay for it. You just View it. The Newspaper is something you BUY, ONCE you buy it, it's yours, you can rip out all the ads you want.


I've got a line or two of text in my sig. I will pretend that it is an ad and proceed to sue everybody who is reading with sigs disabled.
Yet another smart remark, without any attempt to understand the underlying truth, Your SIGS do not support CAA.

I for one am (not trying to brag) a productive member of society. I click the ads on my favorite sites, regardless of weather or not I'm interested.

I run websites of my own, and I know the feeling, fortunately I'm ad free for the next 1.5 years, for the hosting is free for now.

This isn't about me trying to be a smart[butt] and argueing beyond reason. The point here is, that these websites, OUR websites, need ads to stay online, they are essential, ADS are the blood of the internet, Weather it be pop-ups, banners, musical garbage and what-not.

I will say this... I am a proud hypocrite who, while argues for the sake of ads, hates them completely, and will not hesitate to use a pop-up blocker on sites that have heavy pop-ups, for the sake of not slowing down my Comp during increased CPU usage.

I'm not argueing weather or not they're annoying. YES they are annoying. Do i block them? YES. Then why am I argueing? To proove the point that they are essential. Doesn't that make me a hypocrite? It sure does, and guess what, I download music too