Slashdot Mirror
German Supreme Court Rules Ad Blockers Legal (faz.net)
New submitter paai writes: The publishing company Axel Springer tried to ban the use of ad blockers in Germany because they endanger the digital publishing of news stories. The Oberlandesgericht Koln (Germany's Higher Regional Court of Cologne) followed this reasoning and forbade the use of ad blockers on the grounds that the use of white lists was an aggressive marketing technique. [The business model allows websites to pay a fee so that their "non aggressive" advertisements can bypass AdBlock Pro's filters. Larger companies like Google can afford to pay to have the ban lifted on their website.] The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice or BGH) destroyed this court ruling today and judged that users had a right to filter out advertisements in web pages.
> they endanger the digital publishing of news stories
So do eyelids. You can offer whatever content you want. That's it. That's all you can do online: Offer. Whether it's a credential-restricted content (ie premium) or simply open pages, the viewer decides whether to access. The viewer decides whether to subscribe, literally (paywall) or figuratively. Can't force buyers, can't force viewers.
Whether the selective mechanism is eyeballs or software is irrelevant.
What makes someone think they have a *right* to run their code (JS) on my machine without my explicit permission?
Would they allow me to run my own arbitrary code on their computers? Why not?
Website operator: If you don't like folks blocking your ads, it's perfectly fine for you to refuse to serve them up your data.. It would be nice if you let me know why, but it's up to you.
Browsing user: You are free to decide what to block and what to accept.
I get hit by this all the time... "We detect you are running an add blocker...." Followed by a plea to turn it off... If I want the content from your site, I'll let your ads display.. But my ad blocker stays on by default and if you don't provide enough value to make it worth pausing my blocker for you, I suggest you may not be in business very long anyway.
Why did we need to tie this up in court? It was a waste of time and money doing that.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I posit that advertisements are simply a form of information pollution. Instead of getting just the information you want, that information is polluted with contaminated by the inclusion of advertisements. There is a far better argument to be made for outlawing unrequested advertisements than there is for forcing people to see them.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Lynx! No ads, no funky JS/whatever....Yeah, baby!!!
the computer owned by the user. The user still has control over their computer and browser :)
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Lawful or not, I am going to employ the most aggressive ad-blocking setup I can get my hands on. Try and stop me.
Just watch a group of 2 year olds interact
Most folks grow up and recognise that unbridled capitalism works about as well as it did when they were two.
You might want to look to see if you can find patterns of behaviour in children that exhibit co-operative, almost socialist behaviour. It exists, just as surely as selfishness exists. They tend to be phases of development and say less about society than you seem to think.
The problem is socialism doesn't work for the very reason why 2 year olds act like they do, folks want more but don't want to work for it
Some people are selfish. They want more for themselves, even if it costs other people something. Other people are selfless. They aren't satisfied unless they know that everyone is doing OK. Most people are a mix of both traits, and to a degree capitalism/socialism align with those traits.
It's human nature and it cannot be suppressed enough for socialism to work
Pure socialism, sure. But then pure capitalism fails in similar ways, for much the same reasons (selfishness of a few). Your simplistic comparison fails to account for the reality that hard-work is not equally rewarded; that early access to capital creates monopolies that even passively create too high a barrier to entry for new 'hard workers' and that actively seek to perpetuate their power and ignores the tragedy of the commons.
It's human nature to co-operate as well. We're social animals. History is filled with examples of co-operation just as much as it is filled with competition. It's almost like we're animals with complex social interactions.
Capitalism, moderated and regulated and with strong social policies is a fantastic system and those societies that follow this model have some of the highest standards of living for their citizens in the world. The mix of capitalist and socialist policies avoids the weaknesses of each and takes advantage of the strengths of both.
Those are concepts that many adults don't understand these days
The 'American Dream', social mobility and the idea that hard work will result in bettering oneself and one's children has been becoming less true for some time. The US has some of the worst social mobility of any first world country. If some people are refusing to buy into the idea that hard work pays off, maybe they have a better understanding of how hard work is repaid at quite different rates depending on a wide range of factors, including race, socio economic background, educational opportunities etc.
If you want to understand why more people, today, seem to not buy in to the old 'hard work will result in a better life' maybe you should look beyond simplistic stories about two year old behaviour and selfishness. Maybe the income disparity in the US might also clue you in as to why some people have decided that the system that seems to have been good to you isn't one that's likely to be as good for them.
But nah. Social responsibility = socialism = evil is so much simpler.
Can't see why anyone would have anything against this law. Yes, at least in the US anyway, there is the right to speak your mind. But there is no right to make anyone listen to what you have to say.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Sorry, I forgot that there are no capitalist countries on planet earth.
No true scotsman. By the same argument there have never been any socialist countries, either. I still think that it's possible to look at the examples that have existed and extrapolate from them. Certainly the GP seemed to be discussing capitalism and socialism in that way and I replied in that spirit.
If you have a specific criticism of something I said, please make your point.
Handwaving about a lack of 'true' capitalism is noise.
The removal needs to be done by a third party for the magazines and newspapers. Technically possible. Not realistic.
Or to say it with the words of 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 you'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. It'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 don'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, don't even start asking for theirs.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.