Comment

Comment on Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal

A_norny_mousse@feddit.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This would make even a dark mode extension something illegal.

source
- cley_faye@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Screen reader? You better make sure it only works on a site that explicitly allows them, and no reorganizing these sections, or else!
  
  source
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
Natanael@infosec.pub ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
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.

source
- cley_faye@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Also it’s fully legal for the end user to modify stuff on their own end
  
  Although I 100% agree with you, the whole premise of this post is that laws can change. What’s legal now is not a good basis to say “it’s legal, so it can’t be illegal later on”.
  
  source
- localhost001@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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 copywrite holder intended it lol
  
  source
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
They also own Politico and Insider/Business Insider. Feel like too few people are aware of that.

source
- Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source