In a new lawsuit, the publisher alleged that AdBlock Plus removes ads by interfering with the “programming code of websites” which violates its exclusive rights under copyright law.
I would respond that putting ads on my computer interferes with the programming code of my computer under my exclusive rights under copyright law. The unique combination of hardware, software, and data which comprise my computing environment belong exclusively to me.
However I will grant non-exclusive access to my taint for the sole purpose of licking.
Under that rationale, you could be violating copyright law by changing the color balance on your monitor’s settings. 🥴
The difference is that you are choosing to engage in “business” with that website but insisting that you get to dictate the terms without agreement from the other party. If you don’t want to disrupt your sovereign cit-err, the sacntity of your computer: Don’t go to that website or any website that runs those ads.
Don’t get me wrong. I run an adblocker AND a dns level adblocker and have zero qualms about it. I am not sure if I consider it “ethical” but, from a legal standpoint… yeah, it probably does fall into the same bucket as piracy.
Crucially there is a cost to you (in data & power) to receive the ads. Precident has been set since the dawn of the net to choose which elements you download & execute, e.g. text only, no script, no autoplay video
Precident has been set since the dawn of the net to choose which elements you download & execute, e.g. text only, no script, no autoplay video
Has it? Maybe during the usenet days but even then most stuff was downloaded as a digest. And basically once we hit “the good internet” with geocities et al, images were everywhere and things kind of spiraled from there.
Again, this is a world I would prefer and I love/hate that there are browser plugins to get stripped versions of websites and the like. But precedent wise? I… don’t think we were using the same internet for the past 30-40 years.
I DO think the argument for power and (at least where it is monitored) data usage could be a thing. But I am pretty sure the outcome would be landing pages that EVERYONE hates and bypasses.
Also obligatory: Legal Precedent is a very specific thing that is almost entirely based around court rulings and cases. And there are a lot of reasons almost nothing related to The Internet or piracy ever goes to trial.
Can a website operator prove I consented to their terms if I block their consent popup?
What happens if they can’t but continue to provide the website content regardless?
I also don’t consent to having billboards all around me or ads literally mailed to me in the post. I wasn’t even asked in those cases, but for some reason, me not being part of that business agreement doesn’t matter.
Consent doesn’t matter when it comes to advertising, apparently, and if your site delivers content and a side of shit when I ask for content then I’ll just have my robo-butler continue to remove the side of shit before delivering content.
If I can’t give consent in other matters if I’ve had a drink or am otherwise intoxicated, can I give consent to a business or is it simply allowed to do as it wishes?
No means no.
When modern billboards became a thing, many cities or similar jurisdictions passed laws limiting their proliferation, in order to ensure you didn’t end up in a billboard filled dome.
In Canada, at least, you can register your address as a “no admail” destination, and you’ll stop getting those flyers entirely. It doesn’t stop certain protected classes of ads, in particular ads for prospective politicians during an election campaign, or mail that is personally addressed to you (even if it is an ad). But does shut it almost completely down. This would be the legal equivalent of installing a real-world ad-blocker.
Can a website operator prove I consented to their terms if I block their consent popup?
If you continue to use their website than that is a you problem. It is no different than actively ignoring the signage at the local kroger saying “no guns allowed”
I also don’t consent to having billboards all around me or ads literally mailed to me in the post.
Which is a very different mess with very different laws governing it. That said? You would be shocked how easy it is to complain about a billboard ad and get it to go away.
Can a website operator prove I consented to their terms if I block their consent popup?
If you continue to use their website than that is a you problem. It is no different than actively ignoring the signage at the local kroger saying “no guns allowed”
If I block consent notices how would I possibly know there was a consent notice governing continued use and how would a company know I never actually saw the consent notice to begin with?
I also don’t consent to having billboards all around me or ads literally mailed to me in the post.
Which is a very different mess with very different laws governing it. That said? You would be shocked how easy it is to complain about a billboard ad and get it to go away.
It’s the same mess. A company makes an ad and partners with another company to distribute that ad. That distributor then partners with several vendors to show that ad. In exactly 0 cases was the recipient of the ad asked for consent. In one case the recipient of that ad has an option to not see it–heaven forbid they actually exercise that option.
I’m OK with letting websites not allowing me to block ads, as long as I can hold them personally liable for content of any ads they serve up.
No? Then kindly fuck right off with this shit.
In the context that running an ad blocker is a responsible action for security, it’s ridiculous to even be having this discussion.
Insane, ads are a malware threat.
Of course torrentfreak would use the most outrageous & clickbaity title possible. It’s not so bad though.
Discussed in another post:I speak German legalese (don’t ask) so I went to the actual source and read up on the decision.
The way I read it, the higher court simply stated that the Appeals court didn’t consider the impact of source code to byte code transformation in their ruling, meaning they had not provided references justifying the fact they had ignored the transformation. Their contention is that there might be protected software in the byte code, and if the ad blocker modified the byte code (either directly or by modifying the source), then that would constitute a modification of code and hence run afoul of copyright protections as derivative work.
Sounds more like, “Appeals court has to do their homework” than “ad blockers illegal.”
The ruling is a little painful to read, because as usual the courts are not particularly good at technical issues or controversies, so don’t quote me on the exact details. In particular, they use the word Vervielfältigung a lot, which means (mass) copy, which is definitely not happening here. The way it reads, Springer simply made the case that a particular section of the ruling didn’t have any reasoning or citations attached and demanded them, which I guess is fair. More billable hours for the lawyers! @
“It is about the question of whether at all and in what quality online journalism can be offered and used in the future – it is about freedom of information without paywalls. This is fundamental to democracy,” the company writes.
Fucking rich coming from Axel Springer of all places. If there’s one media company in Germany working to undermine democracy and support fascists, it’s fucking Axel Springer. They are the lowest of the low in Germany’s media landscape and if they stopped existing tomorrow the country would be much better off for it.
