Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal
Technology
100
Beiträge
68
Kommentatoren
1
Aufrufe
-
It's not capitalism, it would happen under any system. It's caused by psychotic power hungry narcissists willing to do anything to stay in control...you know, the type of people willing to do anything to obtain power in the first place. It is the bane of society, only the people who are unfit to have the power are the ones who seek it.
It's caused by psychotic power hungry narcissists willing to do anything to stay in control...you know, the type of people willing to do anything to obtain power in the first place
You know, the type of people who end up with the most power under capitalism.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
What a shit website and article. At least post the one from Mozilla themselves.
The case is not just blocking adblockers: the issue is that Adblock Plus specifically charges companies to let their ads go through. That is one of the main concerns.
-
I know that my preferred browser (librewolf) does not and doesn't have a native build for OpenSuSE and often has problems with video conferencing in the flatpak. Its the only reason I've kept vanilla firefox installed.
Interesting. I have flatpack Chrome and camera works (hence my it should). OTOH I have dnf Firefox and camera doesn't work because 'You did not allow the browser to use the web camera. Reload the page and try again.' I guess (your) Firefox issue might not be related to flatpak. (Fedora 42/KDE)
-
Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation.
This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.
This is complete bullshit thought up by people who have no idea how computers work. It's basically the failed youtube-dl DMCA takedown all over again. The (final?) ruling basically said that website owners cannot tell people how to read their websites.
BTW, Axel Springer products are the equivalent of FOX in America and they are often embroiled in lawsuits against them. Just saying.
They also own Politico and Insider/Business Insider. Feel like too few people are aware of that.
-
It's caused by psychotic power hungry narcissists willing to do anything to stay in control...you know, the type of people willing to do anything to obtain power in the first place
You know, the type of people who end up with the most power under capitalism.
Not just capitalism, under any system...this is a people problem that exists within all ideologies.
-
They also own Politico and Insider/Business Insider. Feel like too few people are aware of that.
Oooh, that's why my comments get deleted on business insider when I rant about the inflationary use of "Deindustrialisierung". They can go fuck themselves.
-
What a shit website and article. At least post the one from Mozilla themselves.
The case is not just blocking adblockers: the issue is that Adblock Plus specifically charges companies to let their ads go through. That is one of the main concerns.
I thought there was a reason why they sued Adblock Plus and not the vastly more popular uBO. I thought it's just because they are a company (possibly German). But this makes much more sense.
This article is FUD and I suspect Mozilla's is at least significantly less so.
-
I guess the new acronym should be MAAAM
I prefer AMAMA.
-
Interesting. I have flatpack Chrome and camera works (hence my it should). OTOH I have dnf Firefox and camera doesn't work because 'You did not allow the browser to use the web camera. Reload the page and try again.' I guess (your) Firefox issue might not be related to flatpak. (Fedora 42/KDE)
Yeah, I think it's more related to the inherent security settings in librewolf and the sandboxing flatpak does not meshing well, which is fine as that's a great upside for it. It's not a big deal to have a dedicated browser, but I'd rather be able to block most if not all the crap when I do need to use the webcam which is why I avoid Chromium browsers when possible.
-
What a shit website and article. At least post the one from Mozilla themselves.
The case is not just blocking adblockers: the issue is that Adblock Plus specifically charges companies to let their ads go through. That is one of the main concerns.
Even that shouldn't be illegal. It's shitty, but it's still too far
-
Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation.
This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.
This is complete bullshit thought up by people who have no idea how computers work. It's basically the failed youtube-dl DMCA takedown all over again. The (final?) ruling basically said that website owners cannot tell people how to read their websites.
BTW, Axel Springer products are the equivalent of FOX in America and they are often embroiled in lawsuits against them. Just saying.
Ad blockers do literally the reverse, they don't inject anything, they sit on the outside and prevent unwanted resources from loading.
Also it's fully legal for the end user to modify stuff on their own end. And the information in the filter about the website structure is functional, not expressive - no copyright protection of function.
To claim copyright infringement for not rendering a website as intended due to filters also means it would be infringement to not render the website correctly for any other reason - such as opening the website with an unsupported browser, or on hardware with limited support, or with a browser with limited capabilities - or why not because you're using accessibility software!
-
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.
But ad blockers don't distribute derivative materials.
It's like saying you can't distribute a stencil to cover up things you don't like to see in a book.
-
I guess the new acronym should be MAAAM
US used to call it FAANG (but then there's been a bunch of renames)
-
I wonder how much money Google bribing Germany to make it happened ?
Bribing Merz*
-
So much for Europe being more progressive. They’re shilling for corporate on par with the states.
Germany, progressive? Have you ever lived there? I'm amazed they even use web browsers enough to notice now, compared to their fax machines.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
Dumbest argument I have ever heard, this is the equivalent of someone gifting me a book and I am not allowed to annotate, redact, highlight, or rip pages of it because of copyright. That makes zero sense, how did it even go to court?
-
Not just capitalism, under any system...this is a people problem that exists within all ideologies.
Capitalism directly rewards this kind of behaviour. Maybe it would still be a problem in other systems, but capitalism very much exarcabates it by design.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
Will they sue Dillo next, because it looks like this there?
🥹
Btw, they lost in this already what, 7 times?
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
Great, but how could they possibly enforce it? It's infeasible.
-
Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation.
This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.
This is complete bullshit thought up by people who have no idea how computers work. It's basically the failed youtube-dl DMCA takedown all over again. The (final?) ruling basically said that website owners cannot tell people how to read their websites.
BTW, Axel Springer products are the equivalent of FOX in America and they are often embroiled in lawsuits against them. Just saying.
I think they do understand what they are doing. Just like with modifying a "protected" program locally, a native one. They are making laws about what you can and can't do, and outlawing tools allowing you to do that.
Honestly until it's possible to make laws forbidding you to do something that doesn't violate anyone, such will be made. If you can spend N money if forcing something through markets, and a bit less than N if lobbying for a law, then you'll do the latter.
Anyway. The problem is in the Internet and the Web as things which encourage this behavior.
