[keithpeter]

But the television program is broadcast from one transmitter and is chosen by the TV company. Defining the 'content' to be legally protected is easy then - it is what the broadcast transmitter sent. In the UK we have a system for monitoring the actual broadcast output of TV stations to ensure that they comply with certain rules, so there is an evidence base. TV broadcasting is (usually) organised on national territories so there is no doubt as to the laws that the broadcaster and viewer are operating under.

My understanding is that the content of a typical Web news site is assembled from a number of different servers and the advertising content depends on the browsing history from one particular client as detected by scripts that are served from an advert server - the 'tracking' mentioned in the OA.

My point is that deciding what the 'content' was that was protected might be difficult under those circumstances. Also which legal entity is going to do the 'protecting'? Suppose I'm reading The Verge: I'm sitting in the UK, and a lot of our internet traffic goes through a large interchange in Amsterdam. The Verge is based in US. See my point?

[core2]

I see your point, but here the problem is not only tracking, but ads serve.

As a content provider, my content is "what the broadcast transmitter sent", this is a code sent from my server to the browser of the client. Now Mozilla and AdBlock extensions are modifying my code. It's very clear what I wish to send - my code, but this program is modifying my code. Superfish and other injection malware replace parts of my code with theirs, while ad blockers and Mozilla, just remove some of my code.

As a content provider, ads or subscription (ad free) are my only ways to monetize.

It's very hypocritical to disable ads and in the same time to make 97% of your money from Ad company.

Almost all of Mozilla's revenue for 2013, the last year for which it has reported financials, came from search deals that make various providers, notably Google, the default in Firefox. Of the $314 million in revenue for 2013, $306 million, or 97%, came from the search deals. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2862717/mozilla-were-no...

They are abusing their dominate positions and basically stealing from websites. The product "Mozilla" will be very popular because of the feature "Disable Ads and Track". They could make tons of donations because of that. And websites, that actually create content will serve content for free.

I'm aware with ambitions of ISPs in Europe to disable ads for mobile, in the same way as Mozilla. They hope to milk Google, just like Mozilla and AdBlock. http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/2/7963577/google-ads-get-thro... http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboo... http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8610741/mobile-carriers-eu...

I don't like tracking, bad ads and so on, but I don't believe some guys from Mozilla can decide what is good and what is not.

[keithpeter]

"Now Mozilla and AdBlock extensions are modifying my code."

No they are not modifying your code at all. They are taking the content you provide to the public network and presenting it according to the choices of the person who wants to read your content. I believe that adverts on your pages are served from servers other than your own and I think that in general (perhaps not on your sites) people in different parts of the world will see different adverts when viewing the same page.

If I am having a slow Internet day (don't ask) I ssh into my shell account and use the links text mode browser. Am I modifying your code then? No, just using a rather odd way of viewing Web pages.

[core2]

The problem: New feature from Mozilla (not enabled by default) disables Google Adsense Ads.

Mate, I'm really sorry to participate this discussion. I never had such bad experience. So many downvotes, make me feel really bad.

I see here most people are "users". I was expecting here to find people that actually work in tech, make their money from internet.

I can't understand how you do you see the world, without payment for your work.

It's very easy to talk about privacy rights, bandwidth issues, but the problem here is pure business.

The people who make content, don't receive payment, while people who consume content - consume it.

You must block whole page, if you do not agree with the terms.

But you want to read the content, without payment.

There are no free lunch, guys.

If this model is accepted by all browsers, please, explain to me who will pay salaries?

C'mon ppl, so many downvotes, please, explain to me, who will pay, IF all browsers remove ads?

I'm using Mozilla, since version phoenix 0.3... I'm fan of open-source.. I'm a freelancer.. My only revenue stream is my websites.

Forgive me I want to support my family.

p.s. I'm really disappointed from the community here. I'd expected more from you guys. Really sad.

[keithpeter]

I'm not downvoting you at all and I regret those that are.

What I'm trying to probe is the extent to which you expect international legal protection for your right to protect the totality of one of your Web sites including algorithmically defined advertising.

An example of your work might focus the discussion.

If your content is valuable, why not just pop it behind a pay-wall and charge $1 per month for access?

[core2]

Mate, the option, when you enable it - it's disables all ads and tracking from Google and some other networks.

It's doesn't matter on what network you are, on what device.

I'm on desktop dual Xeon, with high bandwidth, and this feature disables Adsense ads. It's not disable some other Ad networks, for which Mozilla never heard of, but most of the Ads are disabled.

"No they are not modifying your code at all."

Content is modified, some ads are stripped away.

[keithpeter]

The adverts are not your content. You do not know what adverts will be seen by viewers to your page. That (if my understanding is correct) is determined by the algorithmic tracking of users. The adverts may be completely irrelevant and distracting from your content.