Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal
Technology
100
Beiträge
68
Kommentatoren
1
Aufrufe
-
This is truly dystopian. A ruling in Springer's favor here could imply that modifying anything on a webpage, even without distribution, would constitute a copyright violation (EDIT: only for material in which the copyright holder does not grant permission for the modification; so not libre licensed projects). Screen readers for blind people could be illegal, accessibility extensions for high contrast for those visually impaired could become illegal, even just extensions that change all websites to dark mode like Dark Reader could become illegal. What constitutes modification? Would zooming in on a website become illegal? Would translating a website to a different language become illegal? Where does this end?
This needs to be shot down.
Also, wouldn't this ban also potentially kill or at the very least cripple FOSS too? And what about browser forks like LibreWolf or Icecat?
Because I could see this law overriding rights that basically all FOSS licenses grant to modify something as long as that modification, and the source code in general, is still freely available.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
EU please stop, you were suppose to save us from American Tech abuse not join them.
-
Also, wouldn't this ban also potentially kill or at the very least cripple FOSS too? And what about browser forks like LibreWolf or Icecat?
Because I could see this law overriding rights that basically all FOSS licenses grant to modify something as long as that modification, and the source code in general, is still freely available.
No, copyright holders have the right to provide permission for modification and distribution of their copyrighted material. That includes providing conditions for that permission, such as requiring the derivative to hold the same license (like GPL). This is a case where the copyright holder is not explicitly providing those rights, so it is a completely different scenario.
-
This is truly dystopian. A ruling in Springer's favor here could imply that modifying anything on a webpage, even without distribution, would constitute a copyright violation (EDIT: only for material in which the copyright holder does not grant permission for the modification; so not libre licensed projects). Screen readers for blind people could be illegal, accessibility extensions for high contrast for those visually impaired could become illegal, even just extensions that change all websites to dark mode like Dark Reader could become illegal. What constitutes modification? Would zooming in on a website become illegal? Would translating a website to a different language become illegal? Where does this end?
This needs to be shot down.
Dystopian, yes
Also Fascist
Something we never want to see in German politics in particular
-
Dystopian, yes
Also Fascist
Something we never want to see in German politics in particular
I don't see a reason to have a preference for a specific geographic region to not be influenced by fascism. Fascism should not be instituted anywhere, in any scenario. Unfortunately, it's on the rise globally, and I'd personally prefer it not be present anywhere at all, not just in an area in which it has had previous influence.
-
EU please stop, you were suppose to save us from American Tech abuse not join them.
It's a monkey's paw situation. Sure, the EU will protect us from American tech abuse... and implement the same policies internally.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
I buy a newspaper and black out all the advertisements. Now the government is banning black felt-tip pens?
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
Just take your internet connected devices into your back yard and burn them all. Might as well take preemptive action before the internet is killed off.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
I guess we shut off the fucking Internet to Germany then.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
So much for Europe being more progressive. They’re shilling for corporate on par with the states.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
Time to switch back to text-only browsers.
I don't live in Germany though, so I don't have to worry about this legislation or do anything about it
-
It's a monkey's paw situation. Sure, the EU will protect us from American tech abuse... and implement the same policies internally.
We need an African Tech revolution. Unless their tech follows the same path, then we run to an Australian tech revolution. Asian tech is already cooked and has been for a long time.
-
This is truly dystopian. A ruling in Springer's favor here could imply that modifying anything on a webpage, even without distribution, would constitute a copyright violation (EDIT: only for material in which the copyright holder does not grant permission for the modification; so not libre licensed projects). Screen readers for blind people could be illegal, accessibility extensions for high contrast for those visually impaired could become illegal, even just extensions that change all websites to dark mode like Dark Reader could become illegal. What constitutes modification? Would zooming in on a website become illegal? Would translating a website to a different language become illegal? Where does this end?
This needs to be shot down.
New ubo feature: if page does not grant permission to block ads then entire page is blocked.
When I come across a paywall that is not circumvented by simple script blocking I don't even bother to try anymore and I remove these suggestions from my feed.
-
EU please stop, you were suppose to save us from American Tech abuse not join them.
It was never about freedom, but about restoring control of European governments over their citizens' online presence and their data, so that everything they do on the internet is subject to European laws and regulations, not American ones.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
Funny how this thread isn't over-run with copyright shills standing up for the poor journalists. Maybe once the law needs to be changed?
-
I don't see a reason to have a preference for a specific geographic region to not be influenced by fascism. Fascism should not be instituted anywhere, in any scenario. Unfortunately, it's on the rise globally, and I'd personally prefer it not be present anywhere at all, not just in an area in which it has had previous influence.
It's like cancer.
It's never good. But when it's already taken hold once, you want to be extra vigilant.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
Next they'll say that avoiding ads by abandoning the internet on the whole is illegal and that you are legally required to watch ads x times, or for y minutes, per day.
-
This is truly dystopian. A ruling in Springer's favor here could imply that modifying anything on a webpage, even without distribution, would constitute a copyright violation (EDIT: only for material in which the copyright holder does not grant permission for the modification; so not libre licensed projects). Screen readers for blind people could be illegal, accessibility extensions for high contrast for those visually impaired could become illegal, even just extensions that change all websites to dark mode like Dark Reader could become illegal. What constitutes modification? Would zooming in on a website become illegal? Would translating a website to a different language become illegal? Where does this end?
This needs to be shot down.
AFAIK, this is unlikely to lead to a ban on ad blockers. Worst case is probably that the judgment will imply some way to deliver ads that is illegal to block.
In any case, there are exemptions for certain assistive technologies. Those might not be much affected.
-
It was never about freedom, but about restoring control of European governments over their citizens' online presence and their data, so that everything they do on the internet is subject to European laws and regulations, not American ones.
And much of that driven by lobbyism by the same media empires who are trying to get rid of ad blockers.
-
Next they'll say that avoiding ads by abandoning the internet on the whole is illegal and that you are legally required to watch ads x times, or for y minutes, per day.
Bah, it's only a mandatory 1439 minutes a day
