[bojan_bozovic]

@Dragan

Bravo za link sa princeton.edu - http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/...ndex.php?p=145

Like free television broadcast content supported financially by advertising, much of the content on the Internet today is distributed free to end-users for an indirect exchange of advertisement revenue. When a user loads an ad-driven copyrighted website, he produces a copy of the work due to the inherent architecture of the Internet. If this user is using Adblock to screen out annoying advertisements, he is creating an unauthorized derivative work analogous to skipping television commercials. By the letter of copyright law, this practice would most likely be seen as an infringing use.

As far as I know, Adblock is only capable of carrying out these infringing uses. Unlike the non-infringing time-shifting capability of the Betamax VCR, Adblock is unfit for any other purposes and, in particular, is not capable of any other substantial or commercially-significant non-infringing uses. With this framework in mind, Adblock would have to satisfy three criteria in order to be held liable for contributory infringement.

Direct infringement by a primary infringer: If a major ad-supported website were to bring a lawsuit, the plaintiffs would have to try impossibly hard not to find a direct infringer who used Adblock to screen ad-supported sites. It would be undisputed that direct infringement would have occurred on a large number of occasions.

Knowledge of infringement: Following the clarification in Grokster by Judge Thomas, since Adblock has no substantial non-infringing uses, plaintiffs would only have to prove that Adblock had constructive knowledge of the infringement, not actual or specific knowledge. Based on more than 100,000 software downloads and its consistent presence in the Top 5 Most Popular Firefox Extensions list, it would be more than reasonable, if not obvious, that the creators knew that people were using their software to execute it’s sole purpose– to block advertisements.

Material contribution: Though Adblock doesn’t provide “the site and facilities” for infringement in the traditional sense, it is clear that it is fully offering the goods that provide the means for infringement and is actively supporting the software. Just as with Napster, where users without it “could not find and download the music with ease,” users here would not be able to block advertisements easily without the material contribution of the extension code.

Note that this isn’t a case about vicarious liability. It would be difficult to argue that Adblock received any financial benefit from the infringement, or that it ignored the right and ability to prevent the infringement from occurring.

The Adblock extension does not pretend to be a general-purpose image blocker with more advanced capabilities than the standard blocker built into Firefox. A general-purpose image blocker would most likely be deemed to have many substantial non-infringing uses. For example, a cautious parent might want to block images from certain domains to make her browser “kid-safe.” Yet, the extension is being marketed exclusively as a product that will block advertisements from being shown. To see why this might make a difference, consider if TiVo renamed its product “CommercialSkipper.” Even though it would have the same functionality, many in the broadcast content industry would be up in arms about its marketed intent. (But, TiVo obviously does have other substantial non-infringing uses.)

I am clearly advocating a position I am personally not in favor of, but seems theoretically possible that online ad-blocking might one day be part of the copyright debate. I don’t think it has posed a problem yet since fewer than 10% of the online population use Firefox, and even fewer use Adblock. In terms of financial loss for content providers, the impact is unsubstantial since much of online advertising is still based on pay-per-click charging models. If the practice of ad-blocking eventually becomes so ubiquitous as to limit revenue, it will be interesting to see how Adblock holds up in the copyright war.

Ovo je gotovo ceo clanak.

Da primetim i duple arsine: kada softver menja sajt da bi prikazao reklame onda je scumware http://www.freewebmasterhelp.com/articles/scumware a kad menja sajt da ne bi prikazao reklame, nije.