Newspapers threatening to sue Brave Browser

The problem is that many people think they they have the right to display whatever adds they want. I would argue that they shouldn't. However, the internet isn't free and ads have filled that financial void. No free lunch and all. It is far from the ideal model for the internet, so I'm interested in seeing different models.

Wikipedia gets all its funding through donations, so they don't need ads. It also means that they can be independent because ad providers can't suddenly threaten remove their ads and funding because they disprove of an article that Wikipedia is hosting. I know that many TV shows avoid risky topics because they can't afford to live without ad revenue, and some have crossed that line and have been cancelled.

I like the browser. That said, I don't claim to know anything about coding and everything else it takes to make a browser, but I was curious from the start how they were managing to block ads and still make money. Question answered.

I hope it works out in their favor or they can come to some kind of agreement without having to change anything because I like it as it is, which is clean, simple, and fast. I like it for a good secondary browser.

Also, still really digging the Vivaldi browser. I'm waiting to see how it goes. Firefox and Chrome are so big right now, I don't see people leaving either in droves anymore than they left Facebook for Google+, but I would love to see Vivaldi succeed and gain a foothold in the top five, if not top three browsers. I could easily dump Chrome for Vivaldi as it is now.

I'm inclined to agree with that.  Replacing the ads is an extra step from blocking the ads and would seem to me to be crossing a line.  They're essentially hi-jacking the traffic.

a bit below the belt if it displays ad in the same place where the original ads are.

now, if it were to have the top edge of the browser (or some other edge) as some sort of permanent ad space where the ad doesn't have anything to do with any site visited that's different. (not in legal terms.. no clue about those. but conceptionally a bit more acceptable)

blocking ad is good. this ain't blocking ads.

Well, the ads aren't screened for malware...so on one hand Brave is doing a good thing...but this smacks a bit too much like a protection racket to me...

But the arguments pro and con are interesting.

Browser hijacking....

A phrase people have despised since browsers were invented.

Thinking you are going somewhere to see something....only to end up seeing something else.

It's Browser hijacking.

It will be dead in the water just as soon as the Lawyers articulate correctly.

Just how is it browser hijacking?

It doesn't take you to any other site than the one you type in. The ads on that site will be either allowed or not allowed and supplanted with screened, paid advertising, which won't have malware...and you get a percentage of the profits (albeit tiny).

Browser hijacking according to Bleepingcomputer:

Browser Hijacking refers to a piece of software that is installed on your computer and that overrides the default functionality of your web browser. It does this without your permission and tends to be very difficult to remove. 
Some of the ways that these software hijack your computer is as follows:

• You go to www.google.com and search for a keyword.  Instead of getting the results from Google, you will instead be taken to the hijackers search engine where they make money from their advertises.
• Your browsers home page is overriden, and you are brought automatically to the hijackers website.
• You click to go to a online shopping site for printer ink cartridges, and instead of going to the site you wanted to, you are instead brought to an advertises of the hijackers site. 

Popular tools that can remove these types of programs are SpyBot, Hijack This, and Cool Web Shredder. Links to these tools can be found in the Resources section of this site.

You aren't going to the site you intend to...you go to an altered site that displays unsolicited advertising that even the site itself did not sanction.

The ads are definitely hijacked content.

It will eventually be deemed illegal.

Removing ads is not entirely legitimate in all countries either.

EG...PVRs that can eliminated the ads from being recorded are not legal everywhere.

on the bright side, removing ads (from webpage) is legit in germany (courts ruled so.. multiple times)

http://arstechnica.co.uk/business/2016/03/adblocking-and-whitelists-legal-rules-german-court/

so i guess if they move hq to there they'll be safe with the blocking part though probably not the hijacking.

That is incorrect. You are brought to the exact url of the site, and nowhere else. Therefore it is not hijacking. 

As for eventual legal outcomes, that may or may not come true. As I said, it's an interesting dilemma, and I do not side with Eich.

However, it is not browser hijacking. 

It's shrewd marketing strategy. I do not think people would care more this browser anyway.  

OK...have it your way.

Call it site hijacking then.

The site you are supposed to see is not the one you end up seeing .

Advertising content is altered.

The site doesn't sanction the advertising 'inserted'....and YOU don't actually want it either.

Ergo no-one wins.

Oh, wait....the makers of "Brave Browser" win.

As long as it profits them at others' expense....sounds like the lawyers will be the eventual winners...;p

The site is the site is the site. It is determined by the url.

You don't know what advertising is there before navigating there anymore than you know which tree will fall down tomorrow. 

You're also safer, because the wonderful advertising you do see is malware free...so, no "drive bys", etc. If the ad services did their due diligence, there would be no Brave browser.

Not just they win and you win (malware free), there's a very small amount paid to you every month or every few months.

And do the makers win? Sure they do...do the makers of Chrome, Edge, IE, Ff, Pale Moon, Vivaldi win? Sure they do. So why is your eye narrowed with respect to Brave? At least THEY pay YOU something and you stay malware free...as if you care which ads you see.

Yeah, you do, because you chose to use a browser that does that specifically as a feature.

If you don't want ads at all, you'd just use any other browser with a blocker.

OK...let's put it simply.

Stardock's sites have advertising.  It helps [a little] with the cost of actually having a site.

That being the case, BOTH the Advertisers AND Stardock hope the site visitors will show interest in the Advertising...and benefit the Advertisers AND therefore the site.

How the fuck does some Pirating inserter of site advertising content benefit the site?  [See? I said 'pirating' not 'hijacking' just to appease the pedantic].

The Browser user gets paid?  Whoopee-do.

It's virus-free?  Wow.  But how does a site VET the content being [oh god I almost said 'hijacked'] inserted without consent 'onto' the site - whether virus free or not?

A User of 'Brave' sees the site [yes, I'm not an idiot...it's the same url] but not with advertising content contracted BY the site but with 'something else' contracted by Brave.

People who use ad-blockers aren't exactly playing fair either, not when the INTENDED process to actually remove advertising being seen is via paying a subscription to the site....which, wait for it...also benefits the site even MORE.

If people get their way I'd anticipate the Browser itself ending up being blocked from some urls instead...;)

Hehe, how funny this is.  I for one don't go to a site to look at the ad's, I go to look for whatever I went there for.  If the ad doesn't do  something moronic like flashes, I generally don't see it.  So I wouldn't know what ad's were hijacked.  So its not browser hijacking its site changing.  I'am quite sure that will be illegal.  If it was my site, I wouldn't want my content changed.

Once again. To me it smacks of a protection racket.

Site owners can block access to their sites to browsers using ad blockers, and do (check out Forbes). They can probably do the same just as easily to Brave.

However, Brave really isn't really pirating nor is it hijacking. 

A website can demand due diligence and refuse advertising which is not screened for malware (malvertising - which volume wise is the huge part of malwaree on the web).

They don't because they want every bit of advertising, no matter from where or how, as fast as they can get it. The fact they have no standards, and the fact ad services have no standards is hardly a comfort when you get hit with redirecting and malware any more than security defects in plugins or extensions and in TLS/SSL protocols.

If they did their due diligence, Brave would never have happened. Eich figured a way to profit from the negligence of others. You (and I) may not like it for different reasons. I think it opens site owners to a kind of extortion. Worse, now that Brave exists, even if site owners and ad services do their due diligence, unless they block Brave from their sites (which hurts them as well), they have no recourse.

The remuneration Brave users get is truly a pittance...perhaps one cup of Starbuck's (or tenbuck's) per month, if that.

How many counter arguments does it take to get Jafo to drop the F-Bomb?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I can see both sides of this argument and am inclined to lean towards the lagal points that Jafo is pointing out, but my gut says they will settle all of this long before it reaches a courtroom for argument.

Point of note, unless there is a secret perk of being an admin, outside of WC we only show a single first-party ad for stardock products, which (being from us) we can guarantee is safe (and costs us nothing to show).

You can make that argument when they start vetting ads from the major ad networks, or only use first-party ads. Since they don't (won't) do it now, the fact that they can't when a user is using a browser they got specifically for that purpose isn't much of an argument.

Realistically, 'pay to remove ads' is not a good business model. People can get that for free, and so long as 1) their security is at risk because businesses refuse to take responsibility and 2) business are using public or consumer-paid resources to deliver said advertising, then consumers are under no obligation to receive those ads.

Successful models involve selling something that people can't get elsewhere, or doing it more conveniently. For example a TV streaming site that releases episodes to non-subscribers on a one-week delay, but simulcasts for subscribers.

To the topic, free ad-supported newspapers are already a dying model. Most of those primarily republish stories from AP and such, and aren't actually doing much if anything that anyone would pay for. Others who do produce a lot of new content are putting up paywalls rather than ads; they didn't survive for decades or more already by giving their content away for free after all.

Lets stop calling this browser hijacking and call it advertisement hijacking, or ad hijacking for short. The deliberate effort to remove ads and replace them. Typically done by a 3rd party to change the ads that a website shows and what the user sees. You still get to go to the website you want to go, its only the advertisements that are different.

Less if he's arguing with me.

It's not hijacking because you chose to install the browser that hijacks the webpages.  It is however exactly the same in functionality as hijackers.  There are way more URL's in a page these days than the one listed on your address bar, and this browser is replacing those advertisement inserts with it's own.  Not every hijacker has a page redirect, the clever ones do this very thing, stealthily inserting their own advertising to avoid being noticed.  From anyone but the user's perspective, it's no different than any other malware.

So, I decided to give a screen shot of the homepage before logging in.

Seeing SD's ad... With "Replace", and "Block all ads" on in settings.

There's the logic....it isn't hijacking because it's hijacking.....;)

But at least psychoak's understanding where I'm coming from....;)

Firstly, Po, you are THAT fucking awesome!  Classic humor there.

Secondly, being a redneck, all I got is a response to the OP Title.  Albeit corny as hell.

"Newspapers threatening to sue Brave Browser"      They don't care, because they're.....

Wait for it......

[spoiler]BRAVE

[/spoiler]

Effin spoiler code NOT working.....