Is the existence of 'ad blockers' illegal?

Regarding the question of whether the existence of ad blockers is illegal, I will provide an answer based on the current legal system and practical handling.

Ad blockers themselves are not illegal under current Japanese law.

The act of hiding advertisements is simply the user adjusting what their own device loads and displays, and this is an operation that is completed entirely on the user's end.

Under general interpretation, this does not constitute a violation of copyright law or the Act on Prohibition of Unauthorized Computer Access.

So why is it legal?

There are three reasons.

First

Advertisements are elements incidental to page content, and users are not obligated to view the advertisements themselves. It is considered a part that can be handled at the user's discretion, similar to skipping over advertisement pages in a book.

Second

Ad blockers do not perform unauthorized access to third-party servers or destroy data; they merely filter the data loaded onto the user's own device. This does not constitute unauthorized access.

Third

While the act of hiding advertisements may indirectly reduce the profits of distributors, it is legally difficult to classify it as an 'act intended to cause damage.' Therefore, it is not of a nature that leads to criminal penalties.

On the other hand, discussions regarding ethics, rather than law, continue.

For media and creators operated through advertising revenue, the blocking of ads weakens their operational foundation. Therefore, there are always voices opposing ad blockers.

However, that is a matter of ethics and business, and is in a different realm from legal prohibition.

What is dangerous is not the ad blocker itself, but using it within specific frameworks.

For example, if a service has a business model that says,

• This is provided for free with advertisements

and the terms of service state,

• Ad blocking is prohibited

If it is clearly stated, it may be a violation of the terms of service. However, even in this case, it is classified as a breach of contract with the service provider, not an illegal act.

Summary

The existence and use of ad blockers are not illegal under current Japanese law. However, since there are situations where it becomes a gray area in relation to service terms, it is important for users to consider where and how they use them.

I will explain how ad blockers remove advertisements, breaking down technical terms as much as possible.

The mechanism of an ad blocker consists of three main processes.

1. Finding and blocking the "location" of ads

Ads have specific sources. They are delivered from fixed locations, such as ad network servers or ad scripts. Ad blockers maintain a "list of known ad sources" and prevent anything matching that list from being loaded.

This list is called a "filter list" and is updated regularly.

2. Detecting and stopping the "code" used for ads

Ads are not just images; they use dynamic programs called JavaScript and tracking tags. Ad blockers read the page code, and when they find writing styles or structures commonly used for ads, they prevent those parts from loading.

This is a mechanism called "pattern matching," which reads and stops the characteristics of the ads themselves.

3. "Removing" ads loaded on the page from the screen

Sometimes, even if the loading of an ad is stopped, a blank space remains. To avoid this, ad blockers hide the ad frames on the screen using CSS, which controls the appearance.

For example, by using methods such as "deleting the area the same size as the ad banner" or "hiding elements with class names specific to ads," they are completely removed from view.

In short, ad blockers are built on a three-tiered mechanism: do not load, do not execute, and do not show.

It does not simply hide images; it comprehensively controls ad communications, ad scripts, and the ad frames themselves.

As a result, the entire page becomes lighter, and there is a secondary effect of stopping information collection by tracking tags.

I will explain.

◆ How do YouTube ad blockers work?

YouTube video ads are inserted through a different path and mechanism than the video itself. Based on this, ad blockers achieve 'removing only the ads' through the following methods.

● Blocking communication to ad delivery domains

YouTube uses dedicated servers and URLs to deliver ads. Ad blockers have a list of these and stop communication to them midway.

As a result, ad data does not arrive, and only the video is played.

● Disabling code that loads ads

The YouTube page contains scripts and tags for inserting ads.

Ad blockers detect these and delete them before they are loaded or manipulate them so they do not function.

● Hiding ads displayed on the screen after the fact

This is a method of judging elements that look like ads visually and forcibly hiding them. This mechanism monitors the HTML and CSS structure and covers up only the relevant parts.

◆ A 'cat-and-mouse game' with YouTube

Since YouTube is based on advertising revenue, it continuously implements measures to disable ad blockers.

A perpetual battle is ongoing, where the ad blocker side responds, the YouTube side implements counter-measures again, and the ad blocker side responds once more.

I will explain the reasons.

◆ Why it is considered 'legal'

● Because it is interpreted as the user's 'choice of how to browse'

Ad blockers are treated as nothing more than the user changing settings on their own device regarding

'which data to receive and which to reject.'

In other words, it is not an act of destroying or stealing someone else's property.

● Because terms of service and 'laws' are different things

It is true that YouTube's terms of service prohibit ad blocking in a way that is close to a ban.

However, a violation of terms is not a 'violation of law.' It is generally treated that even if you break the terms, it does not become a subject for criminal penalties or civil litigation.

● Because it has been judged not to fall under 'circumvention of technological protection measures'

Copyright law contains provisions that prohibit acts such as breaking copy protection.

However, ad blocking does not break protection measures or tamper with content; it simply 'stops the loading of ads,' so it is considered not to fall under this category either.

● Because advertisers and platforms have historically avoided litigation

Ad blockers have existed for a long time, but moves to make them illegal or sue over them have faced many practical difficulties and have not been carried out on a large scale.

Therefore, there is a background where they have continued to operate as 'legal' by custom.

◆ However, it is not "completely problem-free" either

● It violates YouTube's terms of service
● YouTube has the right to take countermeasures such as blocking access
● If advertising revenue decreases, service operations may become unstable

Given these aspects, it can be said that it is treated as being in a gray area.

That point is not a simple matter of "lack of effort," but rather involves a slightly more complex power dynamic. I will explain it step by step.

◆ Conclusion

Even if YouTube finds itself in a difficult situation due to ad blockers, it is extreme to conclude that it is due to a "lack of effort."

However, it is also a fact that it is easily perceived that the platform side has a "responsibility to respond."

◆ Why it cannot be dismissed as "lack of effort"

● Because the advertising model is inherently fragile

Advertising revenue is strongly influenced by the economy and user behavior. Ad blockers are only one part of this, and revenue deterioration is not necessarily linked to "negligence."

● Because service providers need the option to present the value of an ad-free experience

YouTube already has:

● YouTube Premium
● Memberships
● Super Chat

and other multiple revenue sources. If they continue to design a system that relies solely on advertising, that is a matter of risk management, and it is viewed more as a "strategic choice" than a "lack of effort."

● Because ad blockers are treated as legal and are socially accepted

If you assume that ad blockers are an "enemy to be eliminated," then you could say that efforts are insufficient, but both legally and customarily, the existence of blockers has continued to be tolerated.

Establishing a business in that environment is also the responsibility of the business operator.

◆ Having said that, here is why it is not a matter of blaming YouTube for the shortcomings

● User behavior cannot be controlled

Even if technical countermeasures are taken, if users continue to look for ways to bypass them, complete prevention is almost impossible.

● Because the platform scale is too large, it takes time to transform the revenue structure

Even if transitioning from advertising revenue to another model, for a global-scale service, it cannot be said that this can be done overnight.

◆ In other words

● Even if ad blockers become widespread and YouTube loses revenue
　→ It is unfair to conclude that it is "YouTube's negligence"
● However, there is a responsibility to continue providing strong revenue sources other than advertising
● Platforms need to continue changing their strategies based on user behavior

This is the nature of the relationship.

Whistling in the Afternoon (Alternate Version) - Neko Oboro with Suno AI

[PR] Introduction to Music Generation AI with Suno AI

AI-generated, for reference only.