Slashdot Mirror
German Court Rules Adblock Plus Is Legal
An anonymous reader writes: Following a four-month trial, a German court in Hamburg has ruled that the practice of blocking advertising is perfectly legitimate. Germany-based Eyeo, the company that owns Adblock Plus, has won a case against German publishers Zeit Online and Handelsblatt. These companies operate Zeit.de, Handelsblatt.com, and Wiwo.de. Their lawsuit, filed on December 3, charged that Adblock Plus should not be allowed to block ads on their websites. While the decision is undoubtedly a big win for users today, it could also set a precedent for future lawsuits against Adblock Plus and any other tool that offers similar functions. The German court has essentially declared that users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web.
Pictures ad or text ad on website usually host on different servers than the content provider. If I use my old fashion telnet to get the content, I would have to make an extra effort to download these ads. What I am saying is one would argue ads are not part of the "content" from the content provider.
Ad money is how many of the websites finance themselves, pay their bills. From that point of view the AdBlock hating sites only want to show you the contents ONLY if you see the advertisements.
Expect further development of Ad pushing technologies, because the websites will need to get paid or they will go out of business.
I think industry should consider the example of Netflix: for a cost of one movie one can watch dozens a movies at the convenience of their homes. Last time I have heard Netflix is not a loss making company.
Even if we ignore the main use of Adblock Plus, which is blocking advertisements, and looking at the broader functionality of "users are legally allowed to control what happens on their screens and on their computers while they browse the Web", then it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages. I personally don't use Adblock Plus, as I like to support the sites I visit, and most of the sites I frequent have only a moderate number of ads. However I do use stuff like Flashblock to stop things like autoplaying movies and animations. I also don't like running Flash by default as there are a lot of exploits. Not allowing users to run what they want, and being required by law to run whatever script the webpage sends at them is a recipe for disaster.
What we are seeing is a fundamental collision between the old and new concepts of control. It used to be we could not control ads, such as on TV, all we could do is use them to as a break to do something else. Then came the VCR with timeshiftimg and fast forward and control switched from the content provider to the end user; which set off a fight over that ability. We are seeing that in the online world now as technology allows users more control over how content is presented and delivered; and the content providers are seeking ways, either via technology or courts, to limit the transfer of control. Some try to use the old model digitally, such as magazines that provide an online edition via a "reader" that flips pages and shows add pages just as you would with the print edition. I suspect we'll see new ways of delivering adds, especially as the box in our home gets more adept at recognizing who, and how many, are in the room and paying attention. Content providers will move from the, in the US at least, model of Intro, Add, Title, add, 8 minutes of action, ad, etc. to a way to more fluidly place commercials. Who knows, maybe part of the show will have a blue screen so adds could be individually tailored during the show, much as MLB does with ads behind home plate.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
"dishonest *** who take money from Google to whitelist their ads"
CEOs should accept that I use an ad blocker. If I didn't have an ad blocker, I would be more aware of their ads and would probably be successful in getting some of the CEOs fired for dishonesty and incompetence.
Adblock Edge is a fork of the Adblock Plus(R) version 2.1.2 extension for blocking advertisements on the web. Adblock Edge was primarily branched off from Adblock Plus(R) 2.1.2 source code package "https://adblockplus.org/downloads/adblockplus-2.1.2-source.tgz" created by Wladimir Palant.
Adblock Edge will be discontinued in June 2015 in favor of uBlock , a general purpose blocker that not only outperforms Adblock Edge but is also available on other browsers and, of course, without "Acceptable Ads Whitelist".***
Pale Moon x64 is Firefox with adult supervision. With Pale Moon, use AdBlock Latitude.
Firefox is becoming less and less stable. It's so unstable that it often doesn't report crashes, so the crash reports aren't reliable, they show far fewer crashes than actually occurred. The underlying problem is that Mozilla Foundation needs better management. At present, Mozilla Foundation management is sometimes excellent and sometimes very unreliable.
Yup, that's how the law works. Science also doesn't go by, "It's obvious so we don't need to test it," and we're better off for it.
The only problem is - at least in the US - the cost of such actions to the smaller party. In this case it doesn't matter so much as you have one bunch of scrounging old media cunts in one corner and a bunch of dishonest pricks who take money from Google to whitelist their ads in the other. But the judgment is valuable nevertheless.
I have only recently become aware of the risks advertising poses through injected malware etc. and so am a very new user of Ad Block Plus, but you can just turn off their white listed adverts as well can't you? (or did I misunderstand that option when I installed?).
Do you object that the default is to allow these whitelisted Google adverts?
no, there are good options in the middle, like the NY Times, which has a soft paywall.
don't bloody act like I am required to see your ads.
That wasn't their argument. Their argument was that a commercial company, the one that makes ABP, was altering their content and providing it to their users for profit, thus violating their copyright. Their argument was that it was akin to them taking a (free) magazine, cutting out all the adverts and then giving it to users, while accepting fees from advertisers to avoid being cut.
The court didn't buy it, which is good, but don't mis-characterise their position just to make the look foolish. Their case has a strong basis in law, which is why it took so long to resolve.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC