?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Pedin · Guren


Ads are here and LJ has corrupted itself

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *

It is one thing to get into the advertisement fray to fund a system that should have been profitable but clearly is not. It is quite another to foist ads on people and leave them with no choice to opt out. The new terms of service say this:

ADVERTISEMENTS AND PROMOTIONS
You understand and agree that some or all of the Service may include advertisements and that these advertisements are necessary for LiveJournal to provide the Service. You also understand and agree that you will not obscure any advertisements from general view via HTML/CSS or any other means. By using the Service, you agree that LiveJournal has the right to run such advertisements with or without prior notice, and without recompense to you or any other user. 

Now 'any other means' is an interesting thing. I do not allow many active X components such as Flash to run on my computer. If an ad uses Flash, am I violating the TOS? I block all tracker sites such as doubleclick.com. If an ad uses this service, am I violating the TOS? My company requires I maintain their list of blocked sites (for security reasons). If an ad requires a link to such a site, have I violated the TOS?

If I view someone's journal that has ads, what then? Have I violated the TOS?

This sucks.

My temperment:
pissed off pissed off
* * *
* * *
[User Picture]
On April 20th, 2006 06:40 pm (UTC), clauclauclaudia commented:
I *think* general view means "ads would show up in your post except that you jigger it not to". Not what you do as an end-user.
[User Picture]
On April 21st, 2006 03:17 pm (UTC), elimloth replied:
I *think* general view means "ads would show up in your post except that you jigger it not to".

Contract law is explicit that unless specific limitations are enumerated, any statement may be interpreted to its broadest coverage. This TOS, and in prticular, this statement has no linkage to specific use other than *any* ads in *any* page obscured by *any* means.
[User Picture]
On April 21st, 2006 03:43 pm (UTC), clauclauclaudia replied:
fair point.
You are of course correct.

The good news is that LJ is backing the hell away from the ad-blocker part of the new ToS and blaming the lawyers, and a revised one will be appearing shortly.

http://community.livejournal.com/lj_support/629907.html
* * *

Previous Entry · Leave a thought · Share · Next Entry