Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal
Technology
99
Beiträge
67
Kommentatoren
1
Aufrufe
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
It should/would then also be illegal to block virus/spyware delivery, or everyone's favorite, 50 porn window pop ups. The latter was "fixed" by browsers maybe 10 years ago.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
I'm gonna modify Springer's websites so hard, they're gonna resemble a Picasso's painting
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
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.]
-
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.]
I wouldn't call it fair, this is a clear cut case of copyright law abuse and they shouldn't be able to make dumb stuff up and waste everyones time. This shouldn't even be a case.
The company is also shady: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE
-
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.
Correct, this case (as far as I'm aware) is only about modification. I simply mentioned distribution and derivative works to talk about libre licenses like GPL being different than what the court case is about
-
Great, but how could they possibly enforce it? It's infeasible.
As long as they can reduce the adblock usage, it is a win for them. 100% success is not the goal. Right now there is nothing stopping everyone from using some sort of adblocker (0% revenue is possible actually), which must be scary.
-
I wouldn't call it fair, this is a clear cut case of copyright law abuse and they shouldn't be able to make dumb stuff up and waste everyones time. This shouldn't even be a case.
The company is also shady: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE
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.
-
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.
lining the pockets of copyright lawyers
-
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574
With the recent insults to privacy (including E2E encryption) and the pro-corporate legislation, has Germany lost its way? Seems like newer generations are forgetting the lived experience of the Stasi. Also, I feel that pro-tenant legislation is at risk.
Update: the top comment is the best; don’t read my bullshit.
-
I wouldn't call it fair, this is a clear cut case of copyright law abuse and they shouldn't be able to make dumb stuff up and waste everyones time. This shouldn't even be a case.
The company is also shady: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE
If what manxu said is true it might be both courts agree its clear cut. It sounds more like a pull request getting rejected because of quality issues. "Fix it and resubmit. We don't want this happening again"
I've learned courts have a lot of jargon and procedures that don't make sense on the surface. some things that sound bad actually are for your benefit and it's best to get a lawyer to translate.
-
Germany, progressive? Have you ever lived there? I'm amazed they even use web browsers enough to notice now, compared to their fax machines.
Health care here still uses fax machines.
-
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.
Africa tech is just Chinese tech so they're already cooked.
Australia basically banned encryption long ago and in doing killed off their tech industry.
We need a New Zealand tech revolution, which is where all the Australian IT firms relocated to following the encryption ban.
Encryption laws are hurting Australia's tech sector, Atlassian says | Australian security and counter-terrorism | The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/27/encryption-laws-are-hurting-australias-tech-sector-atlassian-says
-
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.
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?
-
Even that shouldn't be illegal. It's shitty, but it's still too far
What should be illegal here is the kind of misinformation, if you permit some ads and allow others, you're an advertising agency and should be upfront about it. If your whole business model is "I hide ads" but you only hide those ads that didn't pay you, that's false advertisement.
-
What should be illegal here is the kind of misinformation, if you permit some ads and allow others, you're an advertising agency and should be upfront about it. If your whole business model is "I hide ads" but you only hide those ads that didn't pay you, that's false advertisement.
Sure, but that gives end users standing to sue, not these guys
-
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.
Honestly every law usable to keep a business working that would fail otherwise is shady. Other than preventing (literal physical) theft, robberies and murders.
Especially if it limits your freedom to do whatever you want that doesn't involve stealing, robbing, killing, raping, putting stuff on fire ...
-
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.
