WHOA: megapublisher Axel Springer asks German court to ban an ad-blocker. They claim HTML/ CSS code of websites are protected computer programs. And influencing how they are displayed (e.g by removing ads) violates copyright. Endless security, privacy and technical downside & absurdity 1/
Well. It is absurd in all its forms. To me this compares to the idea that if I bought a physical newspaper from a outlet in the Springer group I was forced to read it from a-z. Don’t jump sections or any ads otherwise I would violate the copyright of the publisher. Crazy.
This. In addition, people carrying branded plastic or fabric bags turned inside-out came to my mind. Evil copyright terrorists I guess.
This is such a terrible idea that I'm surprised the UK Government haven't already thought of it.
I hope the claim is kicked out. However if it's upheld and ad blockers aren't able to alter source code, then presumably a DNS redirect will be fine. That doesn't alter the site's source code, but by sending ad requests to a null server it'll definitely stop them displaying.
2/Preventing ad-blocking would be a huge blow to German cybersecurity and privacy. There are critical security & privacy reasons to not blindly run all code from a site. Like stripping out dangerous code & malvertising. Or blocking unwanted trackers.
3/Defining HTML/CSS as a protected computer program will quickly lead to absurdities Potential infringements? -Screen readers for the blind -Dark mode extensions -Displaying snippets of code in a university class -Inspecting & modifying code in your own browser -Website translators On and on...
4/ I'm not a lawyer but this mindblowingly misguided attempt to redefine HTML/CSS could force a radically break everything... From web search to code on GitHub to page excerpts in search results to @waybackmachine.bsky.social @archive.org and so much more... blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/20...
5/ And by the way, hacking risks from the online advertising are documented. Any attempt to force Germans to run all of the code on a website without consideration for their privacy and security rights and needs will end poorly. www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...
6/ Here's the court case. translate with Google while you still can ;) I hope the German court seeks expert opinions from the BND, BfV and others. Perhaps they could also inquire whether these institutions already block ads to protect national security? www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/P...
7/ Oh, and as @mozilla.org points out: only one country has banned ad-blockers. #China. Which would be terrible company for #Germany.
I'm also not a lawyer, but how can Axel Springer even attempt to prohibit ad-blockers, an overall client-side right, instead of restricting their own server-side content by simply saying "You cannot display our content with an ad-blocker"? ... which is there right.
Because they are fuckers. Wouldn‘t be surprised if this isn‘t about AS‘s ads at all, but „better“ user tracking.
CAN WE ALL JUST ADMIT THAT CAPITALISM IS PRETTY SHITE, AND IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF EVERY SHRED OF THIS KIND OF NONSENSE? AS WELL AS ESSENTIALLY MOST OTHER PROBLEMS AS WELL?
Truly though, it erodes everything it touches. Durability, quality, functionality, privacy, ethics, society, the environment, EVERYTHING will always eventually take a back seat to increasing profit margins. ALWAYS.
Copyright of who? Axel Springer? Or the random advertiser? By this logic the advertiser itself violates the publishers right by providing random content on the pub's page without the pub's consent.
This is antithetical to a foundational principle of the web: that the user agent has the final say on how data is interpreted. TBL should kick these guys’ arses.
Transfermarkt er ejet af Axel Springer SE. Vidste du det?
...A ridiculous court case on so many levels and like. Fucking. VOLUNTEER coders will go on the metaphorical frontlines for an absurd amount of hours to fight with youtube's anti-ad-block nonsense. This megapublisher REALLY doesn't need to get added on the spitelist.
Well...Meant to say they don't *want* to get added to the spitelist aka "we will risk burnout just to ensure you don't dare think you can tire us out"
Didn't expect anything less from Germany
My browser had a rendering error
github.com/autinerd/ant...
> And influencing how they are displayed (e.g by removing ads) violates copyright. Counterpoint: TVs with image upscaling also influence how copyrighted content is displayed. Having a slow/unstable connection also influences how web content is displayed. There is no case here.
And the whole requirement of consent modals on websites is based on the fact that running third party advertisers' code and storing data on end user's device without consent is in principle the same as malicious code. By default, the user consents only to loading a page from a domain they visit.
It is code that runs on user's device, on their internet connection. You may get in trouble for what you run or store on your devices, so you as a user MUST be in control of what is being executed or stored here. Ad blockers and other extensions are basically withdrawing consent.
So user's control over what runs on their puter needs to keep being allowed for other laws to stay in effect. It's not you the user going into a store and agreeing to its rules. It's website that represents a business going into your home and bringing along uninvited guests.
I run a small fleet of blockers and anti-track on my system - one tells me there are 10 trackers on BSky - all blocked.
📌