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.
To understand that !
...to change the definition of "own".
If you the consumer currently control your screen today, then tomorrow you won't own the screen.
They will, and they'll advertise what they damn well please.
And you will accept this behavior with a smile on your face because you paid only $99 instead of $999 for that screen.
If the software is running on the user's computer, at their express request, to do something - at the user's express request, then I can't see how you could rule any other way.
If we were talking about an online-only service that "proxies" the web for you and removes ads, then you may have more of a case, however.
And spyware that does it against or without user's consent (replacing other's adverts with your own, eh, Lenovo?) then that's a huge other matter entirely.
But it's like ruling that if the user WANTS to look at a plain-text version of a particular webpage then that's up to them. So long as the viewer is the one choosing to change the content and knows that, why would you ever think differently.
The alternative just doesn't bear thinking about. Websites DEMANDING that nothing interferes in the process of displaying their page as they intended. Unskippable ads, etc. like on DVD's. DRM for the web, effectively. No thanks.
*People misuse the term "log-in" to a web site when they actually mean "visit the URL", but that's another rant...
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
Ad companies would love to make it illegal for you to get up and go to the bathroom while commercials play. The technology is already here that will tell our televisions when we look away. Just think of the possibilities for advertisers if they could get that data.
Some things need to be said...
I don't mind ads. But when it gets to the point where the ads start rendering the web unusable what else can you do? And when you're getting charged an excessive amount of money for data on your mobile plan you kinda don't want to be paying for stuff you don't even want to see.
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.
Caps are getting more common in the US. One of the biggest national ISPs, Comcast, has been rolling them out city by city. So far still not in most of the country, but they've been rolled out as a "trial" in Atlanta, Memphis, Tucson, etc., and will probably be extended nationally. Here's their FAQ about it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've been to a few websites recently that detect AdBlock and redirect me to a page telling me to turn it off. What's really annoying is that we have WebSense at work, which blocks adverts, and then I get redirected to the switch off AdBlock page.
This is further compounded by some websites sticking up a dialog box telling me to register or "Like" them on Facebook if I want to continue browsing their content.
I suspect we'll be seeing more of this in future, meaning that I'll soon have to re-install NoScript just to browse without being nagged.
Summation 2
Serve them form your own domain. With your own cookies. Do not make them offensive in any way (Pop under, Popup, loud, require click through or interaction, ...) and most of all take responsibility when they contain malware and pay for the damage to my computer and my time.
I understand you need to make money that doesn't mean you have to treat me like dirt.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Ending the monopoly could fix this silliness.
It's my damned screen, and my damned internet connection.
To rule that I have some legal obligation to load and view your ads would be idiotic.
Of course, this was idiotic from the beginning and just some asshole publishers trying to entrench their ad revenue in law.
Since ad companies violate both my privacy and potentially my security, I simply do not care about your ads. Unless you paywall your site, in which case I'll ignore you, don't bloody act like I am required to see your ads.
Not my problem.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
Really, there was a period when everybody was just switching over to broadband where they could essentially give everybody unlimited because there just wasn't that much content out there to saturate the network with. Now, with the amount of stuff delivered online, it's quite easy to go through quite a lot of bandwidth. My kids were eating up a ton of bandwidth watching YouTube videos on their iPods. I set a speed limit on those devices in my router, to about 1 mbit/s and was able to cut their usage to 1/3 of what it was. If there was no limits, people would end up using a lot more bandwidth than they currently do. I have my Netflix set to low quality most of the time because if I don't, it eats bandwidth, and I don't really care most of the time when I'm watching on my tablet. If I had unlimited internet I would probably just leave it on HD all the time, and not set any limits on my kids YouTube, and we could probably easily get to 500 GB per month of usage. Having a limit forces people to think about how they utiilize the resources they are paying for.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
A lot of things are forbidden in Europe and we're better off for it. One day you stupid americans will learn that civilization is defined but what we forbid and not by what we allow. The more bans, the more civilized a country is. It's as simple as that.
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.
I know, right? With their long hair and hippy-hop music. They don't know what it was like in our day, when we had 1 baud modems. We'd start downloading a topless picture of Adrienne Barbeau in April, and if you were really lucky, maybe you got to the nipples by October.
Playing Pong Online was like playing chess by mail. I tell ya, kids just don't know how good they got it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
A lot of things are forbidden in Europe and we're better off for it. One day you stupid americans will learn that civilization is defined but what we forbid and not by what we allow. The more bans, the more civilized a country is. It's as simple as that.
You're kidding, right? Irony?
In my opinion we would be better off with absolutely no limits on free speech.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Too loose? I hope you are joking. We have lost so many rights in the name of "security" and "for your own good" lately.
People are allowing fear to give up freedom at an alarming rate these days.
One thing I never understood is why no one's come up with an ad blocker that still requests ads in the background, but doesn't display them (as an option).
Quite literally, everyone wins in that scenario. Advertisers get to feel like they're changing the world. Web sites are funded. We don't have to deal with advertisements.
And manufacturers/service providers are less likely to deal with the wrath of people like me who go out of our way to avoid products with offensive advertising. We won't know any better.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
So it's cool if I go around telling people you are a pedophile?
I wouldn't go that far. Even in the US, we have limits on free speech. However, I'd say that our limits are pretty sane. You can't spread lies about someone and expect to be able to claim "free speech" when you are sued. You can't threaten to hurt/kill people, claim "free speech", and expect to get off scot-free.
However, if you say something bad about someone ("X is a crook") and you can back it up with evidence/facts ("here's a photo of X taking a bribe"), then you can't be successfully sued for libel/slander. You can also express a wide range of political opinions so long as you stop short of advocating killing fellow citizens. (You would be fine to say "Those LIBERALS/CONSERVATIVES/DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS/CHRISTIANS/ATHEISTS/PASTAFARIANS [pick one or more] are ruining America. We would be better off without them." You just can't continue with "... and that's why I want to round them all up and shoot them to death.")
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Then offer a solution where I can donate $5 to permanently disable ads. Unless your web service is something where I'm going to be downloading or uploading a whole lot of data, I'll never be using more than $5 of your resources and $5 is a hell of a lot more than you'd ever make off ads from one person over the course of a lifetime anyway. Some sites already offer this kind of thing and I commonly take advantage of it on sites I like. Other sites just get hit by Adblock. And no, I'm not going to pay a monthly subscription fee to disable ads on your site, either.
Yes. Those things are limits on free speech. The OP want's "absolutely no limits" on it.
I need control over what comes down the pipe.
I don't need a court ruling to justify that. It's my browser, my computer, my request. You're not *entitled* to send me extra shit I don't want. And I'm not *obligated* to load anything you might put on your page.
Sorry. Deal with it advertisers and click sellers. As long as I pay for an ISP subscription, that's my right: Flat rate or metered; capped or unlimited; dial-up trickle or Tier 3 deluge. It's *my* option and I'm going to exercise it.
If you want to make money or defer your costs, charge a fee or request a donation. That's your option.
I can see the fnords!
As I see it there are two major issues with website ads.. The annoyance factor, and more importantly, the VERY big risk of getting malware embedded with the ads, from a LOT of the sketchy ad-networks. At least if you're on Windows, I'd find the second issue to be FAR FAR more important than the first.. I have a small business doing Windows cleanup and migrating a lot of XP users over to Ubuntu. I've been looking at a program that appears to be a godsend in keeping the crap OFF of Windows, its called "Sandboxie", it allows you to run pretty much any Windows app (your browser?) in a sandbox. If perchance, you pick up malware from webbrowsing, you simply delete the sandbox. Your base Windows install remains clean since you never browse with a non-sandboxed browser. I'm considering looking this to my repertoire of tools to keep Windows clean....
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Ending the monopoly could fix this silliness.
And that's why we need to allow the merger of Time Warner Cable and Comcast.
Er, wait...
Unfortunately, I haven't seen the other fork, uMatrix for FireFox. While RequestPolicy (continued) is good, I don't think enough people are involved in its development which has slowed down quite significantly, since the few months after it's fork from Request Policy 0.5.x. The management of RP rules is a complete mess, and RequestPolicy doesn't give anywhere near the level of control nor information that uMatrix (or uBlock) do. uMatrix is potentially more efficient (less resources; faster) than uBlock.
As much as I hate FF for its Memory issues (refusing to release RAM when tabs and windows are closed). It certainly doesn't crash with any regularity, and FF Nightly (x64, Windows) is the browser I use 75%+ of the time.
That's like saying it's your cable box and your TV and you have every right to control what's on the screen, including stripping ads automatically (without changing channels or muting)
I DO have that right and given the technology to do so I'll exercise that right at every opportunity. They are welcome to try to invade my life to sell me stuff but that doesn't mean I have any obligation to let them do that. Their flimsy business model isn't my concern. If I value it then I will pay for it and I sometimes do. Most times I value my privacy and attention more than I value their advertisements and thus I block them. If this results in TV or other services price adjusting to compensate then so be it.
But somehow it's not okay for the vendor providing you web content to charge you money (indirectly through ads)?
It's ok for them to try but they aren't entitled to any expectation that I should have to support their flimsy business model. I can assure you that I am not interested in their advertisements without having seen them. If they want to subsidize their content via ads that probably means their content isn't especially compelling or valuable.
Are website owners creating websites for charity?
I don't care what their motivations are. Not my concern. I value my privacy, bandwidth and attention. I don't give these away for free, directly or indirectly. I'm not about to provide charity to a website operator just because he threw something up and attached some ads to it.
Do you belong to the entitlement generation?
Apparently you think it is ok for content providers to be entitled but not content consumers. Curious double standard you have there.
"Does any company have some sort of a moral obligation to provide anyone with internet access?"
No, they don't.
That's why the should have a contractual obligation to be considered an utility and provide everyone with Internet access when granted license to serve a given area.