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.
They also own Politico and Insider/Business Insider. Feel like too few people are aware of that.
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.
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.
To claim copyright infringement for not rendering a website as intended due to filters also means it would be infringement to not render the website correctly for any other reason - such as opening the website with an unsupported browser, or on hardware with limited support, or with a browser with limited capabilities - or why not because you’re using accessibility software!
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”.
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 copyright holder intended it lol
This would make even a dark mode extension something illegal.
Screen reader? You better make sure it only works on a site that explicitly allows them, and no reorganizing these sections, or else!
Great, but how could they possibly enforce it? It’s infeasible.
As long as they can reduce the adblock usage, it is a win for them. 100% success is not the goal. Right now there is nothing stopping everyone from using some sort of adblocker (0% revenue is possible actually), which must be scary.
Will they sue Dillo next, because it looks like this there? 👉👈🥹
Btw, they lost in this already what, 7 times?
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?
What about DNS blocks?
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.
/edit: Comment by manxu, who read the ruling, is a lot less alarming.
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
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 😂
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.
It should.
I know that my preferred browser (librewolf) does not and doesn’t have a native build for OpenSuSE and often has problems with video conferencing in the flatpak. Its the only reason I’ve kept vanilla firefox installed.
Interesting. I have flatpack Chrome and camera works (hence my it should). OTOH I have dnf Firefox and camera doesn’t work because ‘You did not allow the browser to use the web camera. Reload the page and try again.’ I guess (your) Firefox issue might not be related to flatpak. (Fedora 42/KDE)
Yeah, I think it’s more related to the inherent security settings in librewolf and the sandboxing flatpak does not meshing well, which is fine as that’s a great upside for it. It’s not a big deal to have a dedicated browser, but I’d rather be able to block most if not all the crap when I do need to use the webcam which is why I avoid Chromium browsers when possible.
Assuming it doesn’t come over to wherever you live too.
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.
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.
Plus what if this hits the US and everywhere else too? I mean, as it stands, Free Speech/Expression and Free Press are basically dead in the 'States, what’s one more right to kill?
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?
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.
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.
Yeah this is never going to happen. Calm down people!
That would be totally unenforceable, imo.
I wonder how much money Google bribing Germany to make it happened ?
Bribing Merz*
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.
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.
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.
Drink verification can.
I’m sure you know but for any onlookers:
This is not a meme, this was in a patent by Sony.
Bah, it’s only a mandatory 1439 minutes a day
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?
Had that
longer in the eastern part
Working on it
At what point do we just redo the web? I’m thinking Gemini but with more geo cities
So much for Europe being more progressive. They’re shilling for corporate on par with the states.
Germany, progressive? Have you ever lived there? I’m amazed they even use web browsers enough to notice now, compared to their fax machines.
Health care here still uses fax machines.
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.
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!
I guess the new acronym should be MAAAM
So the acronym is now AMAMA!
So basically its “we get to decide how data is processed on your hardware when we send it down the pipe”. Somebody should explain server/client roles to these clowns.
