NONE: RE: ONLINE-ADS>> Peter Bull's fanciful "ad piracy" hypothetical
RE: ONLINE-ADS>> Peter Bull's fanciful "ad piracy" hypothetical
Peter Bull (peterb_at_dvp.com.au)
Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:46:38 +1100
Darren Cook wrote:
>>It is not turning off the graphics that infringes copyright,
>>it is inserting new material (advertisements) that does
>>so. There is some doubt as to whether using a special
>>frame (e.g. "framing" the site and adding an ad) is legal
>>or not (I think it is NOT). - Mark Welch
>If I have two browser windows open, at two different sites, then the adverts
>visible in one are not infringing the copyright of the other site, even
>though both are on my desktop at the same time.
>Now if I ask my browser to show those as two frames in the same window, what
>has changed? I'm still just viewing two sites.
>All that Peter is suggesting (as I understood it) is a browser that always
>has a frame open and pointing to the ISP's ad page. In return the I get free
>internet access.
>If the browser was identifying the adverts in a page and substituting its
>own adverts (ie. those suggested by the ISP) in those positions... that is
>an interesting issue. But it still seems that it counts as a user preference.
>For instance, if I buy a newspaper, I'm free to cut it up and rearrange
>things. I might decide to replace the front page ads with ads from another
>newspaper. Yes, I have more interesting things to do in my life :-). But I'm
>not breaking any laws by doing this (AFAIK).
Correct, Darren. Thank you. It seems to me as it does to you that the
controls already inherent in browsers give me as an end user the right to
look at freely available web content in any darned way I please. There is
no site integrity to protect, by the time it gets to my screen it is just a
bunch of media components that I can choose to arrange on my screen in a
way that suits me, not somebody else's website that I am violating against
their will.
My key point since starting this debate has been that the website owners
are so far away from the end user that they have no control over delivery,
no relationship with the customer, and IMHO no business claiming exclusive
rights to the advertising revenue that really should be packaged with their
content by someone who is closer to the customer and can guarantee access
to a particular group of end users. The ISP who owns the eyeballs can
offer real value to advertisers, umpty-ump million web content services who
rely on random hit or miss visits from anywhere in the world cannot.
Inserting ads into website content at source is generally a dumb way for
most advertisers to spend their dough. How content owners get a return on
their considerable efforts is another problem, and one I have great
sympathy with, but that does not change the principle that embedded
advertising messages are mostly very bad value for advertisers.
Inserting ads into a web connection service at the point of delivery to the
end user seems to me to be much smarter (however that is achieved
technically) and likely to deliver a much better return for the advertiser.
Peter Bull
Director, DVP Media Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia
peterb_at_dvp.com.au
For samples of DVP's most recent work, see:
The world's best online wine store - www.thegrape.com.au
Australian Provincial Newspapers Classifieds - www.checkoutclassifieds.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
When it comes to ad performance, not all search engines are equal.
Infoseek gives you solid reporting and highly targeted placement.
(And we return calls, too.) http://info.infoseek.com/doc/sponsors.html
-----
AltaVista Now Serving the Asian marketspace !
Guaranteed Impression, Free Impressions if Clickthru Below 1%
http://www.altavista.skali.com.my email : sales_at_altek.com.my
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
