I don't know why but I feel relaxed about it. It's hardly enforceable and I don't even think Springer will win this. It's just a feeling from experience with those things in Germany.

They're also referring to browser based ad blocking which leaves blockers like pi hole or ad guard to be legal options.

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

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.

I bet Google probably lobbied to revive this somehow.

I don't know why but I feel relaxed about it. It's hardly enforceable and I don't even think Springer will win this. It's just a feeling from experience with those things in Germany.

They're also referring to browser based ad blocking which leaves blockers like pi hole or ad guard to be legal options.

Germany is the biggest economy in Europe and if this somehow passes it could spill over to the EU commission in no time. The Brussels effect could then take care of the rest. Laughing off fascist laws because they do not affect you right now is exactly the reaction fascists like them want you to have so they can corner you.

I actually doubt Google wants shitty newspapers that are stuck in the last century to dictate how the internet works. Next step is that Google has to show them in the results and pay them on top or stop operating entirely. They won‘t stop until they‘re either bankrupt or the internet is toast.

Making ad blockers illegal means they win the ad blocker war that YT has been waging for a while now, once and for all. Basically, ad blockers being banned by law would be YT's Hiroshima bomb on ad blockers and maybe even alt front-ends.

I actually doubt Google wants shitty newspapers that are stuck in the last century to dictate how the internet works. Next step is that Google has to show them in the results and pay them on top or stop operating entirely. They won‘t stop until they‘re either bankrupt or the internet is toast.

It should.

GAFAM

GAFAM is an acronym that refers to five major US technology companies: Google (now Alphabet), Apple, Facebook (now Meta), Amazon, and Microsoft.

Looked it up so no one else had to!

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.

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.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574

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.

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.

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.

They also own Politico and Insider/Business Insider. Feel like too few people are aware of that.