Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal
Technology
122
Beiträge
81
Kommentatoren
1
Aufrufe
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
The copy of the web browser is mine, the data I've downloaded is mine, I can do what I want with it.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
maybe in the future a service offers a flat monthly fee to not have any ads and distributes the money to all of the content platforms that would otherwise show ads. basically it's like a little government taxing users and giving the money to the capital owning class all over again
-
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!
Agreed. By their logic, it would be illegal to write on a newspaper or cut parts out of it because that’s not how the copyright holder intended it lol
-
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!
[Edit: added "The way I read it, coz I am not 100% sure, as explained later.]
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.
Insanity - modifying code that runs on your machine in no way is even remotely related to copyright.
-
Honestly, a lot of modern copyright law is very shady. You can get in major trouble for ripping a CD or DVD? That sounds insane. And what about not being allowed to repair your own tractor? Do you remember the baby dancing to some music, that was then DMCA-ed away?
My favorite is still the absolutely bonkers almost 100 years on copyrights. That has absolutely nothing to do with "the Progress of Science and useful Arts," everything with lining the pockets of copyright holders.
That's why I'm rooting for LLMs to destroy copyright completely. Haters gonna hate but copyright is so broken the best path forward is to completely destroy it and start over.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
So what happens if the ad blocker is built into the browser?
And what happens if a user modifies the Dom by hand using dev tools?
What about DNS blocks?
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
How can it be illegal? Makes no sense whatsoever.
-
So what happens if the ad blocker is built into the browser?
And what happens if a user modifies the Dom by hand using dev tools?
What about DNS blocks?
DNS is a listing of address resolution. Ignoring/Dropping records is not modifying existing entries/mappings. That's a different thing in my eyes.
If the ruling were to declare published content must not be modified, I think there's multiple levels to it too, and it may dictate to any degree between them.
- Interpretative tools (like a screen reader would be, or forced high contrast mode), which may be classified accessibility too
- CSS hacks that change display style but not what is shown (for example forcing a dark mode, reduced spacing, or bigger font sizes)
- CSS hacks or ad blockers that modify or hide content (block ads that would otherwise be rendered)
The biggest danger for a "copyright violation" would be the last point. Given that styling is part of the website though, "injection with intent to modify" may very well be part of it too, though.
It certainly would go directly against the open web with all of its advantages.
/edit: Comment by manxu, who read the ruling, is a lot less alarming.
-
Back in the 90s when the current iteration of copyright laws were being passed, many lawyers disdainfully referred to the act as the 'Mickey Mouse Copyright Act' In no small part because Disney was such a huge driver behind it. They did everything, and I mean EVERYTHING possible to delay the release of their IPs to public domain. There is a reason why the earliest iterations of Mickey Mouse coming out were such a big deal. Did you know that if they didn't act like assholes back in the day, and pre-70s copyright were still in effect, Mickey and Minnie Mouse would be fully public domain as early as 1984?
German copyright laws?
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
lol, I remember the web before ad-blockers. That's gonna hurt them as much as it's gonna hurt everybody else.
-
German copyright laws?
I know nothing of copyright laws in Germany.
-
Next step is that Google has to show them in the results and pay them on top or stop operating entirely.
They already tried that...
They‘ll try again if they succeed in this.
-
What could be the reason this keeps happening everywhere???
The PH levels of the ocean
-
DNS is a listing of address resolution. Ignoring/Dropping records is not modifying existing entries/mappings. That's a different thing in my eyes.
If the ruling were to declare published content must not be modified, I think there's multiple levels to it too, and it may dictate to any degree between them.
- Interpretative tools (like a screen reader would be, or forced high contrast mode), which may be classified accessibility too
- CSS hacks that change display style but not what is shown (for example forcing a dark mode, reduced spacing, or bigger font sizes)
- CSS hacks or ad blockers that modify or hide content (block ads that would otherwise be rendered)
The biggest danger for a "copyright violation" would be the last point. Given that styling is part of the website though, "injection with intent to modify" may very well be part of it too, though.
It certainly would go directly against the open web with all of its advantages.
/edit: Comment by manxu, who read the ruling, is a lot less alarming.
I have this pre-existing accessibility condition where I can't read sites with ads on them. I've been blocking ads my whole life and have a visceral reaction to other people's browsers if they don't have an ad blocker.
I don't see how they could possibly ban ad blockers but not screen readers or ther "focused" modes. If they do, I guess I'll just pretend I'm blind
-
How can it be illegal? Makes no sense whatsoever.
I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this because everyone here despises ads, but I can see an argument for it. I don't know if it is legaly sound, but morally, it boils down to the fact that you are literally using a service without paying for it. The website is offering you a product and the payment is ads. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it, otherwise you really are just stealing it (even if that "stealing" costs very little to the site). I personally use an adblocker and agree that ads on most sites are obnoxious, but I also feel like people make adblockers out to be completely black and white, which they are not.
-
I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this because everyone here despises ads, but I can see an argument for it. I don't know if it is legaly sound, but morally, it boils down to the fact that you are literally using a service without paying for it. The website is offering you a product and the payment is ads. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it, otherwise you really are just stealing it (even if that "stealing" costs very little to the site). I personally use an adblocker and agree that ads on most sites are obnoxious, but I also feel like people make adblockers out to be completely black and white, which they are not.
The server is sending me data and I’m choosing what program I’m using to interpret that data. That shouldn’t be illegal, regardless of the purposes of the data.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
You can make ad blockers illegal, but you can't actually enforce it unless you have a dystopian totalitarian government with a secret police to track down anyone using one. Does Germany have that?
-
How can it be illegal? Makes no sense whatsoever.
How? Simple. A parliament of sort writes the law, it gets accepted. Then, the thing, whatever it is, is illegal.
It have no bearing on your ability to use the thing, of course. However, people providing the thing, people that are found out of using the thing, and people that facilitate using the thing are now easier to arrest.
-
You can make ad blockers illegal, but you can't actually enforce it unless you have a dystopian totalitarian government with a secret police to track down anyone using one. Does Germany have that?
Had that
-
I know I'm gonna get a lot of hate for this because everyone here despises ads, but I can see an argument for it. I don't know if it is legaly sound, but morally, it boils down to the fact that you are literally using a service without paying for it. The website is offering you a product and the payment is ads. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it, otherwise you really are just stealing it (even if that "stealing" costs very little to the site). I personally use an adblocker and agree that ads on most sites are obnoxious, but I also feel like people make adblockers out to be completely black and white, which they are not.
Ads that hide the content, ads that hijack your navigation, unwanted ads that consume your bandwidth which may or may not be on a paid plan, ads that will slow down your device, increase battery usage, or plain crash the site you're trying to see, all of these are just malware. There's no excuse for malware.
For a time, adblockers had a provision to allow non intrusive ads. The mere idea is so dead that the option doesn't even make sense anymore.
