Slashdot Mirror
Using Adblock Plus to Block Ads is Legal, Rules German Court -- For the Fifth Time (arstechnica.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Using Adblock Plus to block ads on websites is legal, a German regional court has ruled. The suit, brought by the company behind the leading German newspaper Suddeutsche Zeitung, is the fifth such case to be decided in favor of the makers of the software, who are based in Germany. The court in Munich also ruled that the "Acceptable Ads initiative," a scheme that requires larger companies to pay for their ads to be whitelisted by Adblock Plus, is acceptable under German law. "To the contrary, said the court, users have the right to block those or any ads, because no such contract exists," Adblock Plus's Ben Williams writes. "Additionally, the judge ruled that by offering publishers a way to serve ads that ad-blocking users will accept, the Acceptable Ad initiative provides them an avenue to monetize their content, and therefore is favorable, not disadvantageous, to them."
Previously, Adblock Plus's parent company Eyeo has won court cases against the German publishing giant Axel Springer, Germany television companies Pro 7/Sat 1 and RTL Interactive, and against the companies operating the Zeit Online and Handelsblatt websites.
You stopped using it altogether instead of just, you know, clicking three (I just checked!) times and moving the mouse a bit to disable the whitelist? I could understand if you had some other reasons why you quit with it, but quitting because disabling the whitelist was too much work for you?
This is stupid. The reasons why people hate ads is that they're often lying, they're huge, they're distracting, they're misleading, they might point to virusses. Acceptable ads to exist, they're the one that don't do any of those things. The maker of Adblock Plus has realized that not having any ads is not a solution and he's right.
Yes there is. In the real world.
If you've ever watched e.g. racing, you'll notice that most of the cars have ads. Those are acceptable ads, because the advertiser pays the owner of the car for permission to put their ad on it.
Likewise, an advertiser who paid the owner of the computer / monitor to put up an ad, would be an acceptable ad. Now, before you complain that what you would be paid isn't worth it, remember that selling advertising space happens when the owner and the advertiser can agree on a price. If they don't want to pay what you demand, you simply don't have a deal. Then let me give you a hint: Real advertisers pay per square inch per minute the car is on the track. Don't accept any offer that isn't per pixel per minute the ad is on you monitor.
Now, it does happen that somebody puts an ad on a car without paying (though it happens more often with trains and bridges). Out in the real world, that's called graffiti, and the advertiser gets fined if caught.
Conclusion: Adblock should be called Graffitiblock.
Though too many are F##KING annoying and resource hungry, and should be killed with nuclear fire.
The real problem though, is the dozens of TRACKERS that usually come with these ads.
They need to die in nuclear fire as well, along with their authors.
I pay my ISP for the privilege of access to the "web". Expecting others to pay for yours is quite a ridiculous idea. If you don't want others to see your shit, don't put it online.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Still.. no one seems to have answered the fundamental question of who is going to pay for the web.
This question has been answered the same way many times: The web was paid for before web ads existed too. Those payment models will still work, even with perfect adblocking. Shops will have their own websites - earning money through sale of wanted items instead of sale of unwanted advertising space. Newspapers and such can use the paywall method, perhaps with "10% free so you see that their stuff is good, pay if you want the rest too". And lots of enthusiasts will still run their websites & blogs as a hobby. I couldn't care less if facebook failed due to adblocking though.
I don't believe we'll ever get perfect adblocking though. The adblockers will get better and better at tossing out:
* ads depending on cookies, especially those used by big ad agencies
* ads depending on scripting, especially standardized scripts from the big players
* ads relying on big garish images, sound or video
because those are the most annoying - and incidentally also the easiest to thwart. Ads in the form of plain text is almost impossible to detect reliably - because you need AI to fully understand text. So to be successful, some will switch to unobtrusive text ads and get through heavy blocking that way. But that will be much better - simple text is easy enough to scroll past.
The DMCA works both ways - in theory.
It is illegal to circumvent "access controls", right?
Well, an adblocker is an access control. It control access to my computer & its screen - and access to my eyes. It also controls read and write access to my cookie database. Hence, circumventing an adblocker by clever websites is a DMCA violation.
A database is a database - there is no legal difference between breaking into my cookie database and breaking into - say - a webshop.
Now, can we have the EFF or some bored rich guy take that to court? Would be interesting to watch the DMCA being used that way.
That's a nonsensical question. The web is not a monolithic service that has a fixed cost for which its owner must be reimbursed. The web is made up of untold millions of individual sites, the vast majority of them free of charge, and its value lies in its diversity. It is not a consumer-pays web.
A few late arrivals from traditional publishing seem to think that they are special, and are asking who is going to pay for their website. Nobody! If this means that they will disappear, excellent, and good riddance. That would be exactly the desired outcome, because they don't understand the web and are trying to roll back time.
Newspapers and such can use the paywall method, perhaps with "10% free so you see that their stuff is good, pay if you want the rest too"
The problem with newspapers is that there are hundreds/thousands of newspaper sites that take 90% of their content from AP/Reuters or other press agency streams. Still, they have their own website, with their own office, and their own paid people. This is a huge waste of resources to duplicate many of the same articles. So, if I was forced to pay, I'd pay for a simple automatic aggregator site that just copies the original press agency articles, and the newspaper sites would still go broke.
I started blocking them when they were called banners. I would block them anywhere if I had the chance. Be it on websites, on the front of my screen, in magazines, on the street, as a logo or on my underwear.
To quote Banksy:
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.
-- Banksy
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If people aren't willing to pay a subscription, or watch ads to view your content, what makes "you" believe your content is worth while?
If there are sites that cannot continue to exist in the format they are now because you refuse to watch advertisements on their site and are not interested in paying for their content, then it obviously needs to die. That's how business works.
Imagine if I opened a brick and mortar store, and offered samples of different types of chip flavors. Similar and different, to other brands.
Now, say when I offer free samples or a free bag of chips, people are interested and or will eat them. Later I change it, and I demand that if they want a free bag of chips, they need to read the advertising on the bag. If people aren't reading the advertisements on the bag and won't visit my shop and purchase chips on their own, do I get to make it illegal that people didn't read the advertising on the bag?
No, it's probably best for me to close shop, as this business model isn't sustainable. It doesn't matter if at one point ,people did read the bags .The fact is, they don't care to do it anymore.
The problem with newspapers is that there are hundreds/thousands of newspaper sites that take 90% of their content from AP/Reuters or other press agency streams. Still, they have their own website, with their own office, and their own paid people. This is a huge waste of resources to duplicate many of the same articles. So, if I was forced to pay, I'd pay for a simple automatic aggregator site that just copies the original press agency articles, and the newspaper sites would still go broke.
You are describing businesses that we do not need. They should go out of business.
This may be a problem for them, but it's a boon for the rest of us.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Users have the right to block banners.
Websites have the right to block users who block banners.
Deal with it.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I use NoScript for Firefox. A side-effect of blocking 3rd party scripts is most advertising gets blocked out. I don't care much about ads, but I'm not going to let some random third party run scripts on my computer when I visit a web site. If the site wants to serve up static jpegs as ads, that's fine, it works, and I don't care about it.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
When I issued the GET request, you responded. I did not play the ad or display the ad content and did not GET request on the load for the advertising, yet your server agreed to this and I did as I wished with your permission.
Why the hell do you call that theft?
Where, for example, is the loss of your content if I don't take it? It's a funny theft when I leave stuff alone...
No - I don't think you understand. The DMCA is an American law, and this is a German court.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Supporting a family does not make you entitled to other peoples money.