cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/34873574
In that case, make sure the judge gets to watch 4x 10 minute ads for every 30 minutes of watching anything in 720p after having paid in full for the highest tier 4K subscription plan.
Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal
Submitted 7 months ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
ulterno@programming.dev 7 months ago
uhdeuidheuidhed@thelemmy.club 7 months ago
The wealthy people will just pay to have the ads removed.
As always, this law doesn’t exist to benefit workers like you and me. It exists to benefit our rulers and should be another example of how government representatives do not represent their populace.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
We are all criminals on this blessed day.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Eh, next try (Nr. 7? 8?) of Axel Springer, a tabloid that wanted to declare their site as a protected piece of art you aren’t allowed to modify (block stuff).
Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
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.
Dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard of.
Will they make Reader More in browsers illegal, too?
What about “dark mode” or “resize font” when the website doesn’t offer those accessibility features?
Will they make the “mute” function on browser tabs illegal, since it modifies the website author’s intention to olay audio upon page load?
I will continue to block ads, spyware, trackers, unwanted elements, popups, and social media links, “illegal” or not.
mcv@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
This is exactly it. It has always been up to the browser to decide how to render a website. There have always been differences. The idea that a browser can honour or ignore parts of the content has always been part of it.
If anything should be illegal, it should be websites 's constant attempts to bypass user preferences. Some of that shit is plain malware.
jaykrown@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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?
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Working on it
jnod4@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Had that
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
longer in the eastern part
kokesh@lemmy.world 7 months ago
How can it be illegal? Makes no sense whatsoever.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
Redex68@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
mad_djinn@lemmy.world 7 months ago
‘using a service without paying for it’ alright. do you want us to sign contractual agreements before visiting websites? Most companies want people to use mobile apps these days because of the legal implications of editing those apps. The ads are baked in.
it comes down to the philosophy of internet systems you ascribe to.
I’d like to see your reaction to that television patent that forces people to stand up and clap after the advertisement.
I’d like to see your reaction to me placing sticky notes on my physical screen over the advertisement’s location such that I never perceive the content.
I’d like to see you kneel, subordinate human worker. Do my bidding. Watch my ads. It’s the moral thing to do.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
the types of ads that are being blocked are effectively a type of malware
jnod4@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
It’s ilegal to photograph people in Germany but it will be fully legal to gather everything about their psyche to serve them ads
cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
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.
bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
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?
Kissaki@feddit.org 7 months ago
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.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 7 months ago
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
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
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 means of production all over again
cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Another way to subsidize a very small handful of extremely large businesses that are already richer than some countries, and outright kill small actors? Sign me up.
nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
yea exactly
RedFrank24@lemmy.world 7 months ago
The copy of the web browser is mine, the data I’ve downloaded is mine, I can do what I want with it.
themaninblack@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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 and why there are such pro-renter economic circumstances
manxu@piefed.social 7 months ago
I speak German legalese (don't ask) so I went to the actual source and read up on the decision.
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!
drmoose@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
Jarix@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Cracking code/verification systems on your computer is also code running on your system, there are literally people in prison for running the code that cracks a program, BECAUSE of copyright laws.
So I’m not sure your setting how bad it already is for users.
(What should be, is not what we are talking about, for the record)
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
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.
neclimdul@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If what manxu said is true it might be both courts agree I am 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.
manxu@piefed.social 7 months ago
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.
dzajew@piefed.social 7 months ago
I'm gonna modify Springer's websites so hard, they're gonna resemble a Picasso's painting
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
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.
willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
The “owners” of our world want us to be passengers, not drivers. They own the carusel, and we rent our rides.
They say we have no skin in the game. Truth is, SKIN is ALL we have in this game. We must have assets in the game as a birthright to make it worth playing in good faith. If most are landless and assetless, sorry, the game sucks. That means untill we get the rules that protect all of our interests, as opposed to protecting massive wealth accumulations at everyone’s expense, we will ignore the rules, the norms, decorum, civility, etc.
If the hoarders break the social contract repeatedly, like they have since 2008, it takes people some time to internalize and digest the fact of what it means for none of us being bound by a social contract. Once people catch on, there will be hell to pay.
Rooty@lemmy.world 7 months ago
So basically its “we get to decide how data is processed on your hardware when we send it down the pipe”. Somebody should explain the server/client roles to these clowns.
chunes@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Great, but how could they possibly enforce it? It’s infeasible.
Potatar@lemmy.world 7 months ago
As long as they can reduce the adblock usage, it is a win for them. 100% success is not the goal.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Dumbest argument I have ever heard, this is the equivalent of someone gifting me a novel and I am not allowed to annotate, redact, highlight, or rip pages of it because of copyright.
littleomid@feddit.org 7 months ago
What a shit website and article. At least post the one from Mozilla themselves.
The case is not just blocking adblockers: the issue is that Adblock Plus specifically charges companies to let their ads go through. That is one of the main concerns.
themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
It doesn’t matter what Adblock plus is doing is perfectly legal, there is no case here. If a verdict affects adblock plus it will affect all browsers. No matter what they claim editing html files on the client side is not a copyright violation.
Natanael@infosec.pub 7 months ago
Even that shouldn’t be illegal. It’s shitty, but it’s still too far
Nalivai@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 7 months ago
I thought there was a reason why they sued Adblock Plus. I thought it’s just because they are a company (possibly German). But this makes so much more sense.
This article is FUD and I suspect Mozilla’s is at least significantly less so.
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.
DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 7 months ago
This would make even a dark mode extension something illegal.
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!
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.
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.
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”.
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
VeganCheesecake@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
They also own Politico and Insider/Business Insider. Feel like too few people are aware of that.
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.
devilish666@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I wonder how much money Google bribing Germany to make it happened ?
pastermil@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Bribing Merz*
mrgnz@feddit.org 7 months ago
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.
A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 7 months ago
I just went through the comments … people are losing their shit. And as always whenever Germany is mentioned, Godwin’s Law is in full effect.
Apparently nobody remembers the very American and very similar youtube-dl takedown which ended in youtube-dl’s favor. tl;dr: website owners cannot tell people how to read their websites.DON’T PANIC nothing has happened, and it won’t for years.
krimson@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yeah this is never going to happen. Calm down people!
Engywuck@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
That would be totally unenforceable, imo.
Mac@mander.xyz 7 months ago
Next they’ll say that avoiding ads by abandoning the internet on the whole is illegal and that you are legally required to watch ads x times, or for y minutes, per day.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Bah, it’s only a mandatory 1439 minutes a day
General_Effort@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Funny how this thread isn’t over-run with copyright shills standing up for the poor journalists. Maybe once the law needs to be changed?
aurelar@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
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 😂
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
aurelar@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
I agree, you’re right. I’m kind of sick of this firehose of bullshit raining down from on high. Freedom is dying in so many different contexts all at the same time.
DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org 7 months ago
Plus what if this hits the US and everywhere else too?
DFX4509B_2@lemmy.org 7 months ago
Assuming it doesn’t come over to wherever you live too.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
OpenSuSE is German, I’m having to wonder if I need to prepare switching distros in case they have to remove Firefox from their repos. I’ll need to research the flatpak to see if it works with webcams for video conferencing.
Zephorah@discuss.online 7 months ago
So much for Europe being more progressive. They’re shilling for corporate on par with the states.
nivenkos@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Germany, progressive? Have you ever lived there? I’m amazed they even use web browsers enough to notice now, compared to their fax machines.
Zephorah@discuss.online 7 months ago
Health care here still uses fax machines.
VeryInterestingTable@jlai.lu 7 months ago
Honestly countries also fight corporations for power. GAFAM have been to threat to the powers in place and it’s essentially a survival match. Countries do spy on their own citizens that’s not news. Internet is a great tool for that.
What we are seeing is probably european countries trying to get rid of GAFAM and puting their own measures in place instead to fill the void, the void being the services, the information, the data the GAFAM were providing to said countries.
shalafi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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!
sirico@feddit.uk 7 months ago
At what point do we just redo the web? I’m thinking Gemini but with more geo cities
uhdeuidheuidhed@thelemmy.club 7 months ago
I’m already getting into self-hosting.
It’s surprisingly easy, and can be done with a VPN that has port forwarding.
Wouldn’t be surprised with how shittifed the web is becoming that we end up with alternatives to DNS since it requires forwarding on port 80.