Comments on: MediaFire asks Mozilla to take down SkipScreen: EDITED

By: iezqandar

iezqandar — Wed, 12 May 2010 05:47:46 +0000

Holy!! i didn’t agree if SkipScreen is continued, I love Mediafire, we love Mediafire, It doesn’t metter about the pop up ads, as long as mediafire keep running, if all user use SkipScreen, what the hell is mediafire keep free services, dammit u SkipScreen!!

By: Medier

Medier — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:15:57 +0000

I didn’t expect Mediafire’s complaint to work either. People are never gonna give up on the free side and even if Mozzila did remove SkipScreen from their site the owner of the Add-On can just post it elsewhere. Since Firefox is Open Source Mozzila can’t do anything to stop it.

Megaupload(Another File Hosting Service) tried another tactic by making it so that their download links don’t work until the specified Time Limit is up but people just made it so that their Scripts or Add-ons just wait 30 seconds or so and then download the link. Megaupload gave up and resorted now resorted to a Download Limit so that you can only download a certain amount every few hours per IP address unless you Pay.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:54:37 +0000

I agree that it is MediaFire’s right to show ads to those using their service, especially an expensive one like file hosting. I feel they also have the right to redirect users based on what’s installed on their browsers (i.e. ad blocking and screen skipping services) to pages that ask them to disable those addons before attempting to view their site. These things are fine to me.

What is not fine is for them to attempt to shut down SkipScreen because they don’t agree with its business model. Personally, I don’t believe anyone has a right to any particular business model. If people like they way MediaFire is doing things, and they want to help them keep doing that, then by all means view their ads, pay for their service. If you think the ads are troublesome or intrusive, then by all means skip them.

If so many people skip the ads that MediaFire goes out of business, then it was not a good business model. I’m sorry. It’s not SkipScreen’s fault that the average user feels like these services are trying to weasel the ads in there.

By: Luka Ramishvili

Luka Ramishvili — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:55:06 +0000

im glad mediafire added feature like this. its the least annoying and always-friendly file sharing service with whom i’ve never had problems, so go on, MF =)))

By: Luka Ramishvili

Luka Ramishvili — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:48:53 +0000

Great Post =)) Completely agree, was going to say the same =))

By: Gerbil

Gerbil — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:09:26 +0000

High Velocity Raptor lol

You use skipscreen to bypass the ads on a free service then complain that they blocked you when they finally got around to it. lol Next thing you’ll be suing Microsoft for blocking you from their services for pirating games on XBox.

By: High Velocity Raptor

High Velocity Raptor — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:41:37 +0000

I recently uploaded a preview movie to send to my friend to evaluate. I’ve been spreading the word about Skipscreen and Ad Block Plus to some of my friends and upon attempting to download, I received this message.

http://www.mediafire.com/autodisable.php

I’m fully aware a free file uploading website does depend on some ad revenue, but I suddenly decided I’ll take my file uploading needs to Sharebee, which I think works faster with Skipscreen. Just go on and keep giving me reasons to not use their service please.

By: Kirk M

Kirk M — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:52:30 +0000

After looking at MediaFire’s website and what the free uploading features are vs “paid plan” features I have to believe that a great deal of MediaFire’s income comes from paid subscriptions. And the act of viewing ads in itself does not generate income. I wonder why they’re not complaining about add-ons like AdBlock Plus, FlashBlock or NoScript. They do a lot more for blocking ads than that rather worthless SkipScreen does.

Every website owner, professional or personal has the right to put up advertisements–absolutely. On the other hand, viewers have the right not to view them. And since Firefox does not have the majority of the browser market (yet) I really can’t believe that MediaFire is suffering all that much.

Either way, the point is moot. If you read what Tom said in his comment above, SkipScreen actually does very little except substitute it’s own advertisements for MediaFire’s. This is the real reason MediaFire should be complaining and their complaint should be taken to the Worcester LLC, not Mozilla.

By the way, one of the 5 links Worcester LLC’s rather sparse website invokes Firefox’s phishing filter stating that the link leads to an attack page (Link is called “Open Source Windows”). Another link leads to a domain that’s for sale (plastered with text ads).

Anarchy at it’s finest, friends and neighbors. ;)

By: rvdh

rvdh — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:56:56 +0000

Somewhat disappointing comments. MediaFire is completely free and still people feel the need to evade ads as well. The reason they have ads is because the advertisers pay for your download, so -to my standards- they have the right to show their ads in return for a free download, whether I click on them is another story, but they do hold that right for providing that service. Be glad that they don’t use timers, or IP limits like others do.

But let’s turn the tables around, start a hosting service yourself, let’s see how long you can keep that ad free. Someone has to pick up the bandwidth bill, and if it was you, you probably reacted in the same way that MediaFire did. In the end, they have to earn a living as well, just like everyone else; no-one works for free.

If you feel this is in error, please start a totally free file server, I’d be happy to up & down load from you. Until then, I concur with MediaFire.

By: Hot

Hot — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 00:44:52 +0000

Thanks for pointing this out Mediafire, I am going to go download skipscreen now. Never heard about it plugins. This is viral marketing?

By: fearlessleeder

fearlessleeder — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:55:48 +0000

Why would any company EVER comply with a request like that?
And if, for some crazy reason, Firefox were to comply, wouldn’t we all just change browsers? Or not update to the new one?

By: Dresandreal Sprinklehorn

Dresandreal Sprinklehorn — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:30:57 +0000

Why doesn’t Mediafire simply put copies of their ads on their download page? DUH!

By: Percy Cabello

Percy Cabello — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:39:54 +0000

Tom, I’m very sorry I confused MediaFire with other file sharing sites. I’ve updated the article to describe the actual process, and noted the original wrong description.

My apologies for the confusion.

By: Havvy

Havvy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:43:14 +0000

It is MediaFire’s natural right to free association (or rather, the right of those who own MediaFire) to choose who may or may not view their website. If they find a way to block those with the extension, they can do that. What they cannot do is say that because it does something they do not like, it should not exist. Thus, I side with EFF.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:59:39 +0000

There are some inaccuracies in this article.

“Like other file sharing systems, MediaFire will allow you to download a file only after waiting 45 seconds during which you are presented a few ads so you are most likely to click on them and get the revenue, or, even better, you get annoyed enough to pay for its premium services.”

MediaFire has no wait times, download limits, or any other delays. You can download as many files as you want at anytime. So the discussion regarding delays, gimmicks, or hoops to download is moot.

These automation scripts have been around in the community for a while via greasemonkey and I’ve never heard of any complaints about them before.

What Skipscreen does is clicks the instantly available link for you and then shows you a full page advertisement for SkipScreen including their own ad. Its pretty misleading to users who think it does something magical for them with MediaFire when in reality it does very little but generate ad revenue for SkipScreen.

By: meneame.net

meneame.net — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:19:16 +0000

MediaFire exige a Mozilla que retire un complemento de Firefox que elimina las pÃ¡ginas de espera entre descargas…

El popular sistema de almacenamiento de archivos online, MediaFire, quiere que Mozilla retire SkipScreen, una popular extensiÃ³n para Firefox que permite saltarse la publicidad y las pÃ¡ginas de espera. Relacionada: meneame.net/story/elimina-esperas-rapi…

By: Omega X

Omega X — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:25:58 +0000

I agree with the EFF. The user has the right to control his or her browser the way they see fit. If that means blocking annoying and intrusive ad models, which these days may or may not contain malicious data, then so be it.

MediaFire needs a better ad strategy.

By: lb

lb — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:38:57 +0000

I’ve never seen one countdown on mediafire and have been using it since it same on the scene. Thats why most people like them.

By: Ray R

Ray R — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:21:17 +0000

Here’s a shout-out to EFF!

MediaFire needs to understand they have no guarantee anywhere in the world to “easy” business success. They need to just get over it and figure out another way to get people to check their ads out in non-user-annoying ways, plain and simple.