Ad Blocking Infringes Copyright? Ancient Sony Cheat Lawsuit May Prove Pivotal
Ad Blocking Infringes Copyright? Ancient Sony Cheat Lawsuit May Prove Pivotal
Reminder: Install Ublock Origin
When the web pages are called up by the web browser, the HTML file is transferred to the RAM on the user’s device. To display the HTML file, the web browser interprets its content, creating additional data structures. The plaintiff sees the influence on these data structures by the ad blocker as an unauthorized modification of a computer program
This has to be the most idiotic thing I read this week.
This has to be the most idiotic thing I read this week.
Landgericht Hamburg enters the room to agree with the plaintiff.
The plaintiff sees the influence on these data structures by the ad blocker as an unauthorized modification of a computer program
The original idiocy here is the DMCA, this and the other idiocies practised in its name are consequences. Over time the idiocies build up as case law precedents until new and ever more egregious cases are made, some of which stick (as in throw shit at the wall and see what sticks) and the cycle continues. Eventually the only way to root it out becomes new legislation.
Eventually the only way to root it out becomes new legislation.
Or violence, which is justified self-defense when tyrants are trying to destroy everyone's property rights.
Make no mistake: these companies are trying to subjugate us and turn us into the digital equivalent of serfs, to be exploited without recourse. We should be a lot more pissed off about this than we are!
And they'll do everything to push some kind of DRM to force their crap down our throats.
I didn't know this was how adblockers and sites worked in general.
If the html file is on the users device and they overwrite it, via an ad blocker, that is in their rights as the property owner of the machine.
Seems like sites need to get creative in new ways to force ads, which I'm sure will be a different kind of intrusive, instead of trying to push their ownership into the space of the users systems.
I thought ad blockers simply prevent that part from being downloaded, saving bandwidth. In that case, there is no manipulation, it was never there to begin with.
Overwrite doesn't even seem accurate. They're mostly just blocking connections to malicious domains, with a little blocking malicious portions of scripts from executing.
Seems like you could argue muting the volume during an ad is an unauthorized modification as well.
Html isn't a program or programming language.
Forcing my computer to display ads infringes on my actual property rights as owner of the machine.
It's beyond the pale that we're even contemplating letting Imaginary Property "rights" (read: temporary privileges) trump actual property rights, let alone actually doing it.
Once again, copyright maximalists fail to understand the medium they profit from, and propose to destroy it.
The display of hypertext always involves the active participation of both clients and servers. It has never been dictated solely by document authors. A given hypertext document (e.g. a web page) may involve resources drawn from many servers, including ones not under the control of the document's author. In addition, client behavior may vary from that expected by the document's author; in matters as minor as the selection of font size, or as major as whether to display images or execute script code. This separation of control is a fundamental feature of the medium, and gives rise to many of the medium's strengths: for instance, the development of servers, clients, and documents may advance semi-independently, serving different interests.
Users may choose clients that they believe will better serve their needs. In many cases, users have chosen clients that take steps to mitigate the power of advertisers to control the medium: see e.g. the adoption of pop-up blocking (pioneered in Netscape plug-ins and minority browsers like iCab and Opera) and the later adoption of anti-malware technology such as Google Safe Browsing by Firefox and Opera as well as Google's own Chrome. These choices have strengthened the medium, making it more usable and thus more popular: imagine how unpleasant the web would be today without the pop-up blocking developed 20+ years ago.
I wonder when they will start going after screen reader companies for changing how the page looks like for their blind users.
US Supreme Court: "Hold our beers"
Hey there! They are simply being inclusive, blind people are potential customers too and should not miss on any “opportunities”..
Well that's dystopian as fuck, ads are a legitimate security threat with the amount of malware, scams, and other shady stuff advertisements online frequent contain.
Edit: Not even a day later there's a report about Google ads straight up serving malware because of fucking course that happened...
It's dystopian as fuck for an even more fundamental reason: your computer is your property, and propagandists have no right to colonize it!
That goes double for the fact that the copy"right" they're trying to justify this invasion of control with isn't actually a right at all, but rather a mere temporary monopoly privilege. They're literally just borrowing from the Public Domain and think they not only own something, but that it somehow supersedes the actual property rights of everybody else!
This has the same energy as shutting your eyes and blocking your ears during a commercial being piracy.
Drink verification can.
mountain dew is for me and you
"The mute button will be re-enabled after this sponsored break. Please keep your eyes open and on the screen."
All color blind people are guilty of copyright infringement for every website they view.
One would think that this is very thin ice for a counter suit, in that how may advertising houses have looked at the source of adblockers to work around them?
You can take my ad blockers when you pry them from my cold, dead body.
Fucking fascists.
Btw, Axel Springer failed repeatedly with the same claim.
Just because you send me malware after some text I wanted to read (in http response), don't give you rights to force me to execute the malware.
Just because I have your book (or page) and look at part of it doesn't give you the right to force me to read it in full or dictate how I'm reading it.
I have every right to reveal/read only part of the book/page. We didn't sign any agreement, if you want me to first look at the part you want to or agree to some license nothing stopping you to do, stuff like paywall or subscription exists...