Slashdot Mirror


Adblock Plus Victorious Again In Court

New submitter Xochil writes: AdBlock Plus has successfully defended itself in court for the second time in five weeks. The Munich Regional Court ruled against media companies ProSiebenSat1 and IP Deutschland. The companies sued Eyeo, the company behind Adblock Plus, asking the court to ban the distribution of the free ad-blocking software, saying it hurts their ad-based business model. An Eyeo release says in part: "We are elated at the decision reached today by the Munich court, which is another win for every internet user. It confirms each individual’s right to block annoying ads, protect their privacy and, by extension, determine his or her own internet experience. This time it also confirms the legitimacy of our Acceptable Ads initiative as a compromise in the often contentious and rarely progressive world of online advertising."

7 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Re:"Annoying ads" by Ostrich25 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not true. You can block all ads. https://adblockplus.org/accept...

  2. Re:Love it by danbob999 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Blocking is still better because you save download time and resources (RAM, CPU)

  3. Re:Love it by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Informative

    As this is the forth lawsuit, it may just be Eyeo that goes out of business due to the lawyer fees.

    Germany is one of several nations that adopted a "loser pays" civil litigation model. I think they recovered all legal costs in another case, but don't recall which one and don't feel like looking it up.

    The ruling likely specifies that ProSiebenSat1 and IP Deutschland are liable for all or nearly all of the costs in this case, and Eyeo is likely have only the cost of their time.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  4. Re:Duh by PRMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or like the courts would say that Hollywood could stop Christian groups from editing their movies down to a more acceptable level...

    Oh wait, that actually happened... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  5. Re:Out of curiosity by easyTree · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here in Manchester (UK), there are an increasing number of HUGE eye-searingly bright digital displays on buildings, roadsides, on the sides of bridges under which the road passes... They are generally the slightly more upmarket version of the flash ads begging you to click - irritatingly distracting. I find it interesting that whoever grants these licenses would so casually prioritize ad revenue over driver safety. It's almost as if they don't actually care.

  6. Re:Wonder if by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Depends on how much the US judge would have been paid off.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Attorney's fees by triclipse · · Score: 4, Informative

    I practice law in California in one of the few areas where the prevailing party as a practical matter is entitled to recover it's attorneys' fees and costs. It is the best possible method to discourage meritless litigation as people generally think very carefully before filing a lawsuit. This should absolutely be the norm for most civil cases.

    --
    No Inflation Taxation without Representation