sorry for butchering the article title, I’ve edited my post to try and reflect the intention of article

  • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    In other news: sunglasses are now prohibited in public transport, they were found to modify the perception of ads, modifying the intellectual property of ad maker in public places, the impact was a reduced market values of ad space in public transit which would have forced the city to increase the ticket price.

    Stay tuned for news on those disgusting blinker pirate: those people blink twice more often than normal people which makes them see only half as many ads, police forces has invested millions in brand new blinking frequency detector, in order to more easily catch those dangerous criminals.

  • Samsy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    Data that arrives in the browser is downloaded and processed there.

    In a newspaper, I could ask someone to cut out the advertisements before I read them. Or not?

  • SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    I’ve never been blocking ads of Axel Springer, because I’ve been blocking all of their rotten publications. Get bent, you assholes.

  • Torx@social.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    @sad_detective_man Nah, come on — Springer is claiming that a website is a computer program.

    But that’s not quite accurate.

    HTML and CSS aren’t computer programs - they’re markup/style sheet languages. They define structure and appearance but don’t perform computation or logic. JavaScript, is a programming language and can make a website behave like a program. The same goes for server-side technologies like PHP.

    However, what Adblockers typically do is prevent certain resources from loading. They don’t modify the underlying program logic itself - they’re just manipulating the DOM or blocking elements before they render. So in many cases, we’re not interfering with a “program” in the traditional sense, but rather adjusting the output or content that gets displayed.

    • kbal@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      they’re just manipulating the DOM

      Imagine trying to explain that in court. Yes, your honour, it’s a sort of object-based model representing the document. No, it’s not really a model of an object exactly. Yes, it’s made of bits and bytes, the same kind as you would use in a computer program, but it has that in common with… no, it does not actually object to anything…

      • Don_alForno@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        They have not been declared illegal (yet). The lower court just has to consider additional aspects according to the BGH and may possibly come to a different decision. In any case this only applies to adblock plus for now.

  • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    I would VERY much appreciate a court ruling that makes spreading misinformation and propaganda illegal

    • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      29 days ago

      What could possibly go wrong with a government which can imprison people for talking about things it can arbitrarily rule “misinformation”?

      • pirateKaiser@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        Very much this. See UK’s legislation for terrorism and activism and how it’s being used to squash peaceful protests for a current example.

        What you should want instead is widespread independent journalism along with a transparent government, national broadcasting and a well educated, critically thinking society. If you try to control information by omission and restriction, you only make it more appealing as it seems like a cover-up. Example: how many times have you heard of the Epstein files in recent months and years? It could’ve been a grocery shopping list and the effect would’ve been the same because of how it’s been handled.

        • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          29 days ago

          100%. Governments controlling information has always been associated with authoritarianism and oppression. This power and control is always eventually abused and misused. The solution to misinformation is information.

  • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    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! @

  • Coopr8@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    Here’s a thing about LLMs, they will effectively make laws like this meaningless. Law comes in to enforce against a company building a program to block ads, extension goes off market. Someone asks their LLM “create an extension function referencing the same data set for my browser that performs the same function” boom new extension with no central point of distribution. Share the prompt on a forum, now everyone has a custom ad blocker. Or not so far down the road, LLM is directly built into the browser, no extension needed just prompt “do not display known advertisements on pages I request before loading, but perform background activity which gives feedback to the site that ads have loaded” boom done.

    In a way, local LLMs are like distributed applications, they make enforcement against specific program functions pretty much impossible.

  • Chais@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    30 days ago

    What’s next? Forcing people to buy articles in the supermarket? Forcing people to go to the cinema? Why is copyright law even applicable here??

    • FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      30 days ago

      Loosely defined legal terms. A “computer program” can be copyrighted. You can write your own that does the same thing but you cannot copy the other code and slap your label on it. With a lot of imagination and bending the words of the shitty outdated law, you could say a website is also a “computer program.” You cannot just go into the code and change it, e.g. by blocking ads. The lower court ruling didn’t take this possible interpretation into account and now has to rule again with this in mind. Nothing’s been decided yet. We’re running a little hot in this thread on misleading headlines.

  • Zephorah@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    That’s foul. I wouldn’t touch YouTube without Ublock. You ever try watching that garbage without it?

    The one app game I like(d) was Scrabble. It was sold and is now an endless stream of ads. Turn, ad, turn, ad, turn, ad, nonstop. It’s unplayable. I had to delete it.

    Ad blockers make media consumable. Granted, less screen time would likely benefit everyone.