sorry for butchering the article title, I’ve edited my post to try and reflect the intention of article
Yes officer, this blind man right here is commiting the heinous crime of not to watching my ad.
In other news: sunglasses are now prohibited in public transport, they were found to modify the perception of ads, modifying the intellectual property of ad maker in public places, the impact was a reduced market values of ad space in public transit which would have forced the city to increase the ticket price.
Stay tuned for news on those disgusting blinker pirate: those people blink twice more often than normal people which makes them see only half as many ads, police forces has invested millions in brand new blinking frequency detector, in order to more easily catch those dangerous criminals.
If I understand it correctly, they’re arguing that any unauthorized “modification of the computer program” (i.e. the web page) is a copyright violation.
This wouldn’t only affect adblockers… this would affect any browser feature, extension, or user script that modifies the page in any way, shape, or form… translators, easy reading modes, CSS modifiers (e.g., dark mode for pages that don’t have it, or anything that improves readability for people with vision problems), probably screen readers…
This would essentially turn web browsers into the HTML equivalent of PDF readers, without any of the customisability that’s been standard for decades…
Yeah, it’s actually really really stupid. If they say this is true, then you can say a website is changing the code of the actual browser as well
yeah I don’t know how German courts work but if rulings set precedents then people could run wild with this
Data that arrives in the browser is downloaded and processed there.
In a newspaper, I could ask someone to cut out the advertisements before I read them. Or not?
time to send TCP packets containing advertisements to German IPs, then sue them for blocking my packets.
You and I both know that these precedents get concocted to be selectively applied. There’s no concern for the actual letter of the law here, it’s just a means to an end.
Anyone else looking forward to the advancements in ad blocking in the future?
i’m gonna block ads even more just to spite the germans
I’m sure most of the Germans will continue using their illegal adblockers. This ruling is ridiculous.
They have not been declared illegal (yet). The lower court just has to consider additional aspects according to the BGH and may possibly come to a different decision. In any case this only applies to adblock plus for now.
Yeah fr fuck them Jerries
Let’s take a deep breath and consider what’s happened. The Federal Court of Justice has sent the case back to the lower court. They have not ruled on anything. They have not said ad blocking is piracy. They have essentially said: lower court, you had 25 boxes to tick but you only ticked 24 in your ruling. Go back and do one that ticks all of them.
It’s entirely possible that the lower court will change its ruling based on the intricacies of German copyright law, which is shit. But it’s not very likely if you ask me. Regardless, whoever loses will appeal it again. This rodeo is far from over. And when it’s eventually over the technology will have moved on, with any luck the law along with it, and the only beneficiaries will have been the lawyers.
So the headline should read more like “German court does not rule out that ad blocking could be a copyright infringement.”
The argument that Axel Springer is just doing it for their love of democracy is also comical. Media pluralism is important, I agree with them that far, but they are stuck in an outdated mindset. They launched a silly tabloid Fox News wannabe TV channel and failed. They are trying to force eyeballs on their content like you are at a news agent. Meanwhile, news is happening on TikTok and so-called AI is going to reduce their page views to dust. By the time we get a final ruling they will have pivoted strategy 10 times to keep the c-suite in caviar while the established media business that made them successful is rotting away under their assess.
isn’t overturning a previous ruling kind of clear intention? what other purposes does this have?
To have a proper justice system.
As the main comment explained: this is not saying “you got the wrong result”, this is saying " the way you reached that result is not the proper way for our justice system".
So they are just saying that the lower court didn’t do it’s due diligence and needs to look again at the case, this time considering the parts they missed the first time.
It is not uncommon in Germany that cases like this end in the same result
To try and explain it in an easier to understand way:
Person X murders Person Y
Court A says “Guilty, because you suck”
Court Higher B says: “Suckiness is not a proper judicial term, do the whole thing again”
Court A says “guilty, because here is the witness testimony, your finger prints on the murder weapon and the video footage of you killing person Y”.
Same result as before, but this time in a proper manner fitting a proper judicial system.
No. This is how the legal system works. When you appeal to a higher court, they can make a call themselves when massive mistakes were made at the lower level or they can say the lower court overlooked something and then make them redo their work. It’s a convenient choice for the higher judges not to have to do more work themselves. But it’s part of the process.
Is returning it to a lower court overturning a ruling?
This sounds more like as described - “redo it”. Overturning would be this court literally “over turning” and saying adblock is piracy.
Yes. The article only links to it in German but “Werbeblocker IV / Ad Blocker IV” on July 31 was the overturning case.
Axel previously tried twice in 2018 and 2023 and failed. Now that it is overturned, he is going to the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg to get a new ruling.
However I don’t speak German or live in Germany, this is my understanding of this article and these court cases.
deleted by creator
I would VERY much appreciate a court ruling that makes spreading misinformation and propaganda illegal
What could possibly go wrong with a government which can imprison people for talking about things it can arbitrarily rule “misinformation”?
Very much this. See UK’s legislation for terrorism and activism and how it’s being used to squash peaceful protests for a current example.
What you should want instead is widespread independent journalism along with a transparent government, national broadcasting and a well educated, critically thinking society. If you try to control information by omission and restriction, you only make it more appealing as it seems like a cover-up. Example: how many times have you heard of the Epstein files in recent months and years? It could’ve been a grocery shopping list and the effect would’ve been the same because of how it’s been handled.
100%. Governments controlling information has always been associated with authoritarianism and oppression. This power and control is always eventually abused and misused. The solution to misinformation is information.
Thought of this too
Something has to be done though
This device is now mandated to watch TV or browse the internet in Germany:
I’m sorry, this is obviously fake. Looks like British engineering at best.
Plus I have it on good authority that Germans prefer latex for their ergonomic devices.
That’s only because zee audio is missing.
(͡•_ ͡• ) explain…. Slowly …
You might want to watch Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece A Clockwork Orange or read the same named book by Anthony Burgess. It’s not only worth it, it’s basically part of the cultural canon.
They can’t stop us from looking away!
Of course torrentfreak would use the most outrageous & clickbaity title possible. It’s not so bad though.
Discussed in another post:I speak German legalese (don’t ask) so I went to the actual source and read up on the decision.
The way I read it, the higher court simply stated that the Appeals court didn’t consider the impact of source code to byte code transformation in their ruling, meaning they had not provided references justifying the fact they had ignored the transformation. Their contention is that there might be protected software in the byte code, and if the ad blocker modified the byte code (either directly or by modifying the source), then that would constitute a modification of code and hence run afoul of copyright protections as derivative work.
Sounds more like, “Appeals court has to do their homework” than “ad blockers illegal.”
The ruling is a little painful to read, because as usual the courts are not particularly good at technical issues or controversies, so don’t quote me on the exact details. In particular, they use the word Vervielfältigung a lot, which means (mass) copy, which is definitely not happening here. The way it reads, Springer simply made the case that a particular section of the ruling didn’t have any reasoning or citations attached and demanded them, which I guess is fair. More billable hours for the lawyers! @
thanks for that link. I’ve got my own arguments but that person seems closer to an educated person than I am
So why do they speak german legalese?
Welp, guess I’m a YouTube pirate now
Example 624994931# for who bourgeois “democracies” are really protecting
It can’t be said often enough: fuck Axel Springer.
They didn’t rule it, they overturned a previous decision. Not that this isn’t bad but it does not mean right now that using ad blockers is illegal. I also think reading other articles on this, that the ruling is also more focused on Adblock plus working with advertisers to allow some ads but block others.
you are correct. I’ve made the oldest and simplest blunder in changing the title. some times we must all learn the basics in emberassing ways
(Complete with terrible ifunny watermark)
as time goes on I’m considering more and more that this man may be my talpa
