Re: Interesting Twist to BANNER ADVERTISING

From: Matt Magri <matt_at_netmeg.net>
Date: Tue 25 Jan 2000 13:40:36 -0500

MATT MAGRI WROTE:
> He (Fred) was talking about places that actually filter
> content of webpages based on whatever rules of
> acceptability the site has, so it's apples to apples in
> that regard. There -are- differences, of course, which
> make it a poor example, but I've commented on that in
> another post.
 
TO WHICH DAVID MCKNIGHT REPLIED:
> If you are saying the end result is similar (between
> blocking spam and filtering content), I don't disagree
> with you. But it is NOT apples to apples when you are
> talking about the intent of the person on the receiving
> end. You didn't ask for the spam -- at all. [ ... ]

I'm not talking about spam, I'm talking about webpages
or items on the webpage, up to and including banner ads.
That kind of filtering -does- go on at such places. They
don't filter it based on the fact that they didn't ask
for it. They filter it based on the fact that they don't
want it, or don't want their charges to see it. Once
again, it is not a good example to defend what Fred was
discussing, but it -is- a case of content modification.

> If you can site a specific court case where it was
> found acceptable for a commercial or government body to
> strip part of the content of a web site and serve the
> balance to a group of users, I'd very much like to see
> that reference. I think it might be interesting to
> discuss a specific example on the list. But don't tell
> me this has been tested in court unless you can show me
> the proof.

I'll ask you to cite something even easier. Please cite
the place that I tell you that "this" (webpage content
modification) has been tested in court, pro or con. I'm
trying to tell you what is already happening on the
net, in response to claims that if it was happening the
legal response would be swift and sure. Since content
modification goes on already and there is not a legal
response, it obviously isn't.

All I'm suggesting is that you don't want to make
"this" the hill you will die on when you are making the
case against the kind of ISP ad replacement that Fred
suggested. A lawyer that specializes in Internet issues
could tell you for sure whether "this" is a gray area
or not, but my gut feeling is that it is. The intent of
most content modification is rooted in the argument
that the enduser (or the company, in the case of a
company's private network) has control over how they
want to use their local resources. That's why every
graphics web browser has the option of turning off
images, java, javascript, whatever. That's why the
folks who have written all of those free
content-modifying ad filter proxies are not being
hauled into court (and, for that matter, why their
pages aren't being pulled off of webservers that host
them). That defense doesn't apply, IMHNALO, to what
Fred was talking about, since the ISP would be making a
directly-profit-motivated replacement of content
-without- the explicit consent of (and, therefore, not
as an agent of) the enduser. I think the case against
that should be a slamdunk. Lumping all forms of content
modification in with ISP ad replacement, OTOH, would
make the case very murky.

Sure, I have my own opinions about how courts would
rule on these matters if such an Internet-based cases
were ever brought to one. You could debate those with
me if you want, but what's the point? We are neither of
us lawyers that specialize in Internet issues. Until
there are lawsuits about webcaches or ad filtering
proxies, however, I will remain skeptical that content
modification alone will inspire legal action. In the
end, there's so much wrong with the ad replacement
scheme that it's pointless to work so hard to come up
with another thing.

Matt
--
Matt Magri
Netmeg Internet




Received on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 12:40:36 CST