'Ad Blocking is Not Piracy' Decision Overturned By Top German Court * TorrentFreak
torrentfreak.com
Legal action by publisher Axel Springer, which aims to outlaw ad blocking on copyright grounds, has been revived by Germany's top court.

sorry for butchering the article title, I’ve edited my post to try and reflect the intention of article

  • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    2 天前

    In other news: sunglasses are now prohibited in public transport, they were found to modify the perception of ads, modifying the intellectual property of ad maker in public places, the impact was a reduced market values of ad space in public transit which would have forced the city to increase the ticket price.

    Stay tuned for news on those disgusting blinker pirate: those people blink twice more often than normal people which makes them see only half as many ads, police forces has invested millions in brand new blinking frequency detector, in order to more easily catch those dangerous criminals.

  • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    19·
    2 天前

    If I understand it correctly, they’re arguing that any unauthorized “modification of the computer program” (i.e. the web page) is a copyright violation.

    This wouldn’t only affect adblockers… this would affect any browser feature, extension, or user script that modifies the page in any way, shape, or form… translators, easy reading modes, CSS modifiers (e.g., dark mode for pages that don’t have it, or anything that improves readability for people with vision problems), probably screen readers…

    This would essentially turn web browsers into the HTML equivalent of PDF readers, without any of the customisability that’s been standard for decades…

    • killabeezio@lemmy.zipEnglish
      11·
      2 天前

      Yeah, it’s actually really really stupid. If they say this is true, then you can say a website is changing the code of the actual browser as well

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.netEnglish
      1·
      2 天前

      You and I both know that these precedents get concocted to be selectively applied. There’s no concern for the actual letter of the law here, it’s just a means to an end.

  • Samsy@lemmy.mlEnglish
    5·
    2 天前

    Data that arrives in the browser is downloaded and processed there.

    In a newspaper, I could ask someone to cut out the advertisements before I read them. Or not?

      • Don_alForno@feddit.orgEnglish
        5·
        2 天前

        They have not been declared illegal (yet). The lower court just has to consider additional aspects according to the BGH and may possibly come to a different decision. In any case this only applies to adblock plus for now.

    • Pearl@lemmy.mlEnglish
      19·
      4 天前

      I’m sorry, this is obviously fake. Looks like British engineering at best.

      Plus I have it on good authority that Germans prefer latex for their ergonomic devices.

  • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.netEnglish
    194·
    4 天前

    I would VERY much appreciate a court ruling that makes spreading misinformation and propaganda illegal

    • JasSmith@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      16·
      3 天前

      What could possibly go wrong with a government which can imprison people for talking about things it can arbitrarily rule “misinformation”?

      • pirateKaiser@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        9·
        3 天前

        Very much this. See UK’s legislation for terrorism and activism and how it’s being used to squash peaceful protests for a current example.

        What you should want instead is widespread independent journalism along with a transparent government, national broadcasting and a well educated, critically thinking society. If you try to control information by omission and restriction, you only make it more appealing as it seems like a cover-up. Example: how many times have you heard of the Epstein files in recent months and years? It could’ve been a grocery shopping list and the effect would’ve been the same because of how it’s been handled.

        • JasSmith@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          6·
          3 天前

          100%. Governments controlling information has always been associated with authoritarianism and oppression. This power and control is always eventually abused and misused. The solution to misinformation is information.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.orgEnglish
    252·
    4 天前

    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! @

  • ook@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    171·
    4 天前

    They didn’t rule it, they overturned a previous decision. Not that this isn’t bad but it does not mean right now that using ad blockers is illegal. I also think reading other articles on this, that the ruling is also more focused on Adblock plus working with advertisers to allow some ads but block others.

  • Zephorah@discuss.onlineEnglish
    15·
    4 天前

    That’s foul. I wouldn’t touch YouTube without Ublock. You ever try watching that garbage without it?

    The one app game I like(d) was Scrabble. It was sold and is now an endless stream of ads. Turn, ad, turn, ad, turn, ad, nonstop. It’s unplayable. I had to delete it.

    Ad blockers make media consumable. Granted, less screen time would likely benefit everyone.

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      6·
      4 天前

      I don’t touch youtube with a browser.

      Grayjay. Or Newpipe.

      If I just have to use a browser, then Invidious.

      • Zephorah@discuss.onlineEnglish
        1·
        3 天前

        No, the regular Scrabble app. There are solo games, but mostly one on one games with strangers. And a speed competition more in keeping with real life play.

        EA originally owned it. I bought it for $5 back on the first iPhone. Limited to banner ads. Then it died, because it was sold. Now it’s ScrabbleGO. The same with some eyeroll garbage for collecting new tile skins and a store for new skins and some pay to play. If that wasn’t bad enough, every time you take a turn, an ad plays after. Banners included as well. It’s unplayable in its current state.

        The closest approximation would be words with friends. Also riddled with ads, triggered to play every 1-2 turns. Also unplayable. Also in addition to banner ads.

        Scrabble is officially dead outside of real life play on a physical board. Which makes me sad. Real life play almost no one plays defensively so it’s just aggravating.