PDA

View Full Version : Replacing Banner Ads on every Publishers Site. Is it legal?



brianwilliams03
08-25-2004, 09:36 PM
A friend of my forwarded this to me and I would like to know your thoughts of the idea of ad technology that replaces content on sites.

Please check out site http://advertising.550access.com Here are following reasons why I think you should look into this:

1) " 550 Access uses AdSwap technology to deliver banner ad from userfs computer on every webpage. During download of a webpage on userfs computer, AdSwap identifies the first banner of standard dimensions on the page and delivers a banner of our advertisers of the same dimensions in exactly the same ad space.\"

2) http://advertising.550access.com/advertising-screenshot.asp

3) http://advertising.550access.com/advertising-faq.asp#1

Q: Is it Legal?
A: The legal implications can be judged from the following:

On website:
The terms of the User License Agreement clearly identify the AdSwap feature and userfs responsibility attached to it. Users consent to this feature when they download the software.

The ads are not misleading. The ad delivered by AdSwap are clearly identified as separate from original content of the website. Each ad has a clearly visible link that takes users to our Ad Info page which again states users responsibility related to the software.

Users have complete control. Users have the option to easily turn off the AdSwap feature at any time. Any replacement of ads is done from the userfs computer only.


Brian

Chris
08-26-2004, 08:25 AM
Its a lawsuit waiting to happen.

incka
08-26-2004, 08:30 AM
GAIN did something like this ages ago and IAB sued them.

ozgression
08-26-2004, 07:15 PM
Surely they wont get away with it...
________
List of vehicles (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/List_of_Toyota_vehicles)

James
08-28-2004, 09:24 PM
Kick your friend in the shins for me.
Then when he bends over to hold his knee because of the pain, knee him in the face.

Thanks.

No doubt that this software will be installed and turned on using an IE vulnerability (as if it has anything BUT vulnerabilities...) without user consent.

It shows up pretty on paper because they say that the users will have given consent, but the twist in this is that the website owners HAVEN'T. And not only that, they wouldn't.