In my opinion, the issue is one of publisher control over consumer’s desktops. It seems that publishers such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, Dow Jones and others involved in the suit think they should have ultimate control over how their websites are displayed to consumers. According to their lawyer, Terrence Ross, the display of pop-up ads in conjunction with a publisher’s content “alters the display of the website, which constitutes copyright infringement.”
This view makes absolutely no sense to me. Why are these publishers picking on Gator exclusively? If they truly believe that they have ultimate control over how their content is displayed to consumers, then there is a laundry list of other companies they should be suing to protect that “right.” Here’s a list:
advertisement
advertisement
The very existence of this lawsuit shows me that some content publishers simply do not get the fact that the consumer’s desktop is a multi-tasking environment. Consumers may use a variety of applications to process and display content in a variety of different ways. At any given time, there can be many ad elements competing for a consumer’s attention. If we want to tell consumers that they don’t have a right to determine how that content and advertising is processed, then we’re opening a giant can of worms. I would have no problem if website publishers wanted to amend their policies so that users surfing their websites would need to disable any other ad-supported application they’re using at the time. At least then, consumers would be able to make a choice as to whether viewing publisher content is worth having to do that. But that’s not the approach here.
In any case, we should stop pretending that publishers have 100 percent of the attention of the consumers who visit their web pages. We know that to not be true. What’s happening here is that Gator is being crucified for what amounts to a very common practice on the web, one that has been a part of the web’s appeal since it became a commercially viable medium. Had this lawsuit been initiated in 1996, maybe these publishers would be suing PointCast for interrupting the display of their websites with their screensaver. Or maybe they would be suing any one of the financial publishers for their streaming quote tickers.
One thing I’m sure of is that a ruling against Gator would be a ruling against consumer choice. It would set a dangerous precedent that could affect consumer’s rights to display content on their access devices in the ways that they like. And as I mentioned in last week’s column, being anti-consumer choice is not the way to go in the Internet business. After all, the web is the first consumer-driven medium.