No, it actually hasn't, at least not to the degree you think.

For example, the main ruling in favor of your argument, the Hopper ruling, turned on this: "commercial-skipping does not implicate Fox’s copyright interest because Fox owns the copyrights to the television programs, not to the ads aired in the commercial breaks."

Not on some more general right to commercial skipping.

The only thing won on appeal so far is the preliminary injunction. Dish may in fact, still lose :)

Even if they don't, unlike TV shows, publishers will likely be able to claim compilation and collective copyrights on the work as displayed to the user. Plus, it's not time-shifting. Plus you have website terms of use that may bind you.

You may not want this to change the result. It probably changes the result.

"The publisher has no right to expect that users actually see ads. Even with TV, all recording devices since the time of VCR skip recording ads completely. And with live TV, people switch the channel."

This is 100% not the same as what is being described here. Those are time shifting devices. This is not. It is not "fast forwarding" the ads on the computer. People are also not switching to different tabs to avoid the ads. You also have another serious problem in websites: Terms of use. Unlike TV, which doesn't bind you to anything, on the web you can be bound to terms of use (plenty of website terms of use have been held valid and binding, it's usually a mixed question of fact and law). Expecting precedent to come out the same given all this seems .. a dubious line of argumentation. It may, it may not. Acting as if this is a solved question is incredibly premature.

Additionally, the only court in your favor has not ruled that Ad skipping is generally okay, it ruled that Fox can't complain about it because they don't own the copyright rights to the ads".

You do realize this means the ad owners* may be able to complain, right?

Anyway, if you believe otherwise, i'd love to see some case law. (Because the case law i've found doesn't support your argument at all :P)

(Note, since i got a private email about it: I actually don't have strong feelings one way or the other as to whether it should be legal/etc, i'm just trying to express an view as to whether it is)