Re: Interesting Twist to BANNER ADVERTISING
FRED WROTE:
> Not true. You would be hard pressed to identify one
> single web surfer who REQUESTED that ad. I have a real
> problem calling banner exchange ads "content". Maybe
> it's just me.
TO WHICH ILONA REPLIED:
> The discussion of what is and is not "content" is
> irrelevant. You would be tampering with the HTML code
> (including the content and the ad tags), which is
> protected by the copyright law.
Actually, it's not as straightforward as that. The code
can be (and probably is) passed on unchanged by the
proxy. It's just that when the request for the ad is
sent by the browser, the proxy sends back a different
image.
> True, most users don't ask to see the ads, but
> someone has to pay the bills-it's either the
> advertisers (who get the eyeballs in exchange for their
> cash), the user (in the form of registration fees for
> ad-free content, or in the form of attention to the
> ads in exhange for free content) or the website owners
> (and why would they run the site if they had to pay
> for people to view their free content).
Yep...
> I think that the current arrangement makes perfect
> sense and everybody benefits.
I'll part company with you there only insofar as local
ads go. Having a legal proxy that was designed to pass
compensation back to the people who consented to having
their ads replaced (along the lines of what I've
outlined in earlier posts... which may or may not have
made it past the moderator ;-) ) would be a positive
refinement to the current arrangement.
Matt
--
Matt Magri
Netmeg Internet
Received on Tue Jan 11 2000 - 15:04:02 CST
