Jeez, will it never end?
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
107 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
3998 readers
545 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If I understand it correctly, they're arguing that any unauthorized "modification of the computer program" (i.e. the web page) is a copyright violation.
This wouldn't only affect adblockers... this would affect any browser feature, extension, or user script that modifies the page in any way, shape, or form... translators, easy reading modes, CSS modifiers (e.g., dark mode for pages that don't have it, or anything that improves readability for people with vision problems), probably screen readers...
This would essentially turn web browsers into the HTML equivalent of PDF readers, without any of the customisability that's been standard for decades...
Or for that matter, is blocking malware even legal?
The original ad blocker! Arrr
Would that actually work? I think USPS gets paid to dump unaddressed mail in mailboxes.
This isn't about the US. It's a common thing in many parts of the world, and it does work in those countries.
Seriously people, we don't need to live out Idiocracy. It was just a movie, not a prediction.
WTF?
Welp... Better start practicing...
\o/ McDonald's!
Of course torrentfreak would use the most outrageous & clickbaity title possible. It's not so bad though.
Discussed in another post:
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! @
No, it's even worse than people realize.
This isn't just about ad-blocking; it's about computer owners' fundamental property rights (or lack thereof). It shouldn't fucking matter if the ad-blocker modifies the website's code, because both pieces of software are running on the owner's machine and he has the right to modify his property in any way he sees fit.
It is no different than a book owner crossing out printed text and writing in the margins: that copy of the book is his to modify as he wants, and copyright doesn't fucking enter into it at all because there's no copying or distribution happening to begin with.
What the German court gas done here is opened the door to copyright holders trying to colonize shit they don't own, stealing control from the actual owners.
I agree: website owners cannot tell people how to read their sites.
But they only re-opened the case; nothing happened yet.
And considering how the very similar youtube-dl DMCA takedown failed so utterly, I don't think this will go anywhere either.
But yeah, companies will try again and again.
There's also an important point not addressed in the above comment: Springer is specifically sueing Adblock Plus (and not the way more popular uBO) who have a commercial model where companies can pay them to let their ads through, and some other fishy practices.
PS:
Somebody else in yet another post said it even better:
Let’s take a deep breath and consider what’s happened. The Federal Court of Justice has sent the case back to the lower court. They have not ruled on anything. They have not said ad blocking is piracy. They have essentially said: lower court, you had 25 boxes to tick but you only ticked 24 in your ruling. Go back and do one that ticks all of them.
It’s entirely possible that the lower court will change its ruling based on the intricacies of German copyright law, which is shit. But it’s not very likely if you ask me. Regardless, whoever loses will appeal it again. This rodeo is far from over. And when it’s eventually over the technology will have moved on, with any luck the law along with it, and the only beneficiaries will have been the lawyers.
But see, that's what I'm saying: the court was wrong to consider that 25th box a thing that needed ticking to begin with. There was nothing that needed re-opening because if the computer owner's property rights were as secure as they're supposed to be, the reason given for sending the case back to the lower court should've been considered irrelevant!
Even just the mere act of re-opening the case indicates the court's contempt for computer owners' property rights.