For applications and games it is illegal to circumvent DRM protections meant to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution in the EU. In the USA it's also illegal, although jail-breaking general-purpose computing devices is legal since 2015.
In general usage of software is covered by EULA terms that are not negotiable and enforced by copyright law. If you don't like the EULA, then you can choose to not use the software in question. Of course an EULA cannot override copyright or contract law. Plus many companies claim that software licensing is not a sale, hence the first-sale doctrine does not apply. The EULA for Microsoft Windows famously says that Windows is licensed and not sold. But overall, in order to use a piece of software you have to respect both the EULA it is distributed under and copyright law. Because without that EULA there's nothing giving you the right to use said software, because the copyright law says so.
In other words, while you may be justified in saying that the user should choose what to run on his computer, modifying an app or a web interface to load just what you want and discard anything else is probably copyright infringement. And even if it's not, though I doubt it, then this can be solved with a simple piece of code that blocks browsers with ad-blockers, in which case blocking such pieces of code from running is definitely illegal.
- In the first case you're gaining access to a content you don't have the right to. Thus braking the law.
- In the second case, you're merely discarding some content that doesn't interest you.
I'm afraid that the kind of argument above will lead us to a dystopia like the one pictured in Black Mirror - Fifteen Million Merits[0].
The websites are accepting this model because any other will just push users away.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.