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.]

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.

Great, but how could they possibly enforce it? It's infeasible.

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.

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

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

Germany, progressive? Have you ever lived there? I'm amazed they even use web browsers enough to notice now, compared to their 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!

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.]

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.