"Skipping ads is stealing" rides again

Slashdot reports that a website, whyfirefoxisblocked.com, is trying to start a campaign to block all users of the Firefox web browser from accessing websites.  Why?  Because Firefox supports an extremely useful plug-in by the name of Adblock Plus, which as the name suggests, allows users to block advertising from websites.

Why is this bad?  According to whyfirefoxisblocked.com:

• blocking advertising "is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers";
• website operators have the right to insist that users of their website view advertising;
• accessing those websites while blocking the ads is "no less than stealing";
• blanket ad-blocking is "theft";
• the makers of Adblock Plus "refuse to allow website owners control over their own intellectual property";
• etc

The bottom line is that, in their eyes, blocking advertising on websites is "theft" and "stealing".  I guess that, by analogy, skipping advertising on television broadcasts is "theft" and "stealing" too?  Apparently so -- except the television industry was saying this five years ago.

In a 2002 interview with Jamie Kellner, chairman and CEO of Turner Broadcasting (a company that controls a number of cable TV channels, including CNN, and a part of Time Warner) said that the increasing penetration of PVRs (Personal Video Recorders, e.g. Tivo, many of which allow you to skip advertising) was not good for his industry.  When asked why, he responded:

Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming.

Everything old is new again.  It will be interesting to see if this campaign gains any serious traction.  It could just be a troll.  In any case, the technical countermeasures that they suggest site owners take could be trivially circumvented.  I wonder if they will then rely on the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA to help their cause?  If this campaign is serious, and spreads, it could lead to a real copyright bunfight.

The whyfirefoxisblocked.com page links to a brief but interesting blog posting suggesting that blocking advertising is an infringement of copyright, and that the makers of Adblock Plus could be liable for contributory infringement.  Yet another issue to explore in a future blog posting...