Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running the code.
And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server.
In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binaries. Blizzard might actually be able to get away with this because their users are paying customers who really, really want to play their game.
In the case of a website running ads, this would mean forcing viewers to run clients that were known by the website to not contain ad blockers; for example, the website could force viewers to run signed browser binaries. Of course, no site that runs ads will try this, because it would just mean nobody would view their site. Notice that sites whose users actually need to go there to do business, such as banking sites or Amazon, don't complain about ad blockers. It's only sites whose business model depends on ads that do. That should be a "here's your sign" moment to ad-supported sites that their business model is not sustainable. It should not be an excuse to sue ad blockers.
I'm of the mindset that most people actually like advertising when the advertisements are highly relevant and not in-your-face.
My first job was at a movie theater and we lined the wall with movie posters of the movies coming out. People just walked over to them and checked them out to see if there was anything of interest coming out in the next few months.
One of the activities in the city I live in now is a movies in the park which is sponsored by some local company. They show a quick 2 minute ad or something and mention that the company sponsored the activity. I wouldn't ever pay to go watch the movie, and am always glad that the sponsoring company essentially paid for me.
It is unfortunate that most modern advertisements online don't try to take a similar approach and show highly relevant ads or just sponsor something they want to exist.
I run a site which is 100% ad-supported, so I'm obviously biased.
> I'm of the mindset that most people actually like advertising when the advertisements are highly relevant and not in-your-face.
I may be an outlier, but I have never gotten any useful information from ads, so I have never had an ad be "highly relevant" for me. Also, to me, any ad in my field of view is "in your face", because it takes mental effort even to filter it out.
> I wouldn't ever pay to go watch the movie
Do you buy any of the products of the company that sponsors the movies?
The site I run displays photos of office interior design and the ads are relevant in that they are photos of products related to office interior design (chairs, desks, lounge furniture...)
One interesting case was a recent ad for a new phone booth product for offices which is generally relevant to my readers, but also specifically relevant because of the current huge desire for private and quiet space in modern open office environments. That ad has performed much, much higher than average.
Regarding the movies thing, no I haven't purchased any products from the sponsoring companies, but I am glad that they paid for me to attend the event in the same way I would be glad if my friend paid for me to attend an event.
You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system, Its 100% reaction based, like anti virus software.
> You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory.
Well, that would certainly make it harder for Blizzard to stop cheating. But not impossible; they would just need to require clients to have locked down memory. That is probably impractical (for example, it might well mean they would have to sell their own locked down client devices), but it's not impossible.
> You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system
Sure you can. But the system might not be practical.
Ad blocking is not a necessarily a browser-based thing. Even if they were to mandate a blocker-free browser, you could block ads with a firewall, by running your own DNS, or through the HOSTS file.
> you could block ads with a firewall, by running your own DNS, or through the HOSTS file.
Yes, you could, but I doubt that the number of people who have both the knowledge and the motivation to do so, instead of just loading a browser extension, is significant. In any case, my point was that just trying to lock down the browser (let alone trying to lock down firewalls, DNS, etc.) is a nonstarter for companies who want to force people to see their ads; the users' reaction will just be to go to another site.
No really. Bot was executed on user's machine, but effects of bot work were reaching well beyond user's machine, destroying economics of game, user experience and company profits.
Yes, the ToS restricting how the user uses the software should not exist in the first place. Keeping control of your computing is the core idea of free software.
Except the bot is causing things to be written to the server. The ad blocker is only blocking requests from happening (and those requests occur on the client side, in JavaScript). It's not blocking the transmission from the server's end at all, it's only stopping an event from happening locally.
