• null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Mozilla guy saying there’s a risk, but i dont really see it, myself.

    Firstly, does copyright really prevent modification for personal use? I dont think it does.

    Secondly, you’re not so much modifying the content as not consuming part of it. I think thats an important distinction for the court to grapple with.

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Logic and reason never stopped monied forces from twisting the letter and spirit of the law to suit their own desires.

      • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Sorry, I think that’s a fairly American take.

        Money can exert influence on law makers, sure.

        In my experience here in Australia though, courts are pretty good at interpreting the law without undue influence.

  • tekato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If that lawsuit is successful then I’ll be next in line suing security camera companies for disrupting my breaking and entering business.

  • Allemaniac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    “The EU recognizes the right of users to choose what content they receive, including the ability to block unwanted advertising.”

    what happened to our privacy rights? Are they being dismantled in order for giant tech companies to take a foothold in controlling the masses? I mean that’s what we get when we elect a self-proclaimed “transatlantist” chancellor. Fuck Merz and his blackrock cronies

  • Ferk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.

    This is ridiculous… the in-memory structures are highly browser dependent, the browser is the one controlling how the DOM is represented in memory… it would imply that opening the website AT ALL in a different version of the exact specific one they target or with a different set of specific features/settings would also be a violation, since the memory structure would likely be different too.

    At that point, they might as well just ask for their website to not be visited at all.

    • chillhelm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      By that same logic I could claim that SHOWING me an ad by circumventing my ad blocker is interfering with the in memory execution of my ad blocker. Wtf.

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      or mandate which program can be used to access the page.

      like an app.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I can literally open up the development console and manually click an ad, and delete it. Am I now hacking and sabotaging a protected program?

    WTF is this for nonsense, what mental gymnastics…?

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Time to outright disable Javascript in my browsers and just deal with the broken sites and generally less useful web.

  • officermike@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If Germany bans ad blockers and a German citizen or company becomes victim to a malicious advertisement, do they have a case against the German government or by extension Axel Springer?

  • Bloomcole@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Black mirror 15 Million Merits

    And this…

    …in a nutshell is US patent US8246454B2. Sony owns the rights since 2009 but has not implemented it. When the permit expires in 2030, it will basically be open for other companies to use

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The case stems from online media company Axel Springer’s lawsuit against Eyeo - the maker of the popular Adblock Plus browser extension.

    Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation.

    FYI, Axel Springer is a company and owns Business Insider (since 2015), Politico, and Politico Europe (since 2021). They suck.

    Gudrun Kruip, a scholar associated with the Stiftung Bundespräsident-Theodor-Heuss-Haus, has claimed that Axel Springer SE, along with its subsidiaries, exhibits a pro-American stance, often omitting criticism of US foreign policy.[58] This observation is then backed by allegations made by two former CIA officers in an interview with The Nation, claiming that Axel Springer received $7 million from the CIA.[59] The purpose of this funding, they allege, was to influence the publisher to align its editorial content with American geopolitical interests.[59]

    As of 2001, the Axel Springer SE names “solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America” as one of its core principles on its website.[60] This explicit stance has led to critiques from scholars and independent observers regarding the company’s perceived alignment with American interests.[58][61][62][63][64] Furthermore, an article in Foreign Policy has critiqued Axel Springer SE for a history of compromising journalistic ethics to support right-wing causes, implying a longstanding pattern of bias in its publications.[65]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Criticism

    • Allemaniac@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Axel Springer company is even worse, their CEO said a year ago that all east-germans are either fascist or communist and that their opinions are to be dismissed, basically stating us as second-class-citizen. He owns the most fakenews spewing tabloids in Germany, BILD and WELT If you want to pinpoint one person where hate and fakenews come from in central europe, Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer SE, is the culprit.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Thank you for that information. Judging from Politco and Business Insider, they’re pretty good at masking their hate and propaganda. Meaning, they’re not as blatant as Fox News here in the states. Are they as shady about it for BLD and WELT?

    • passepartout@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Seems like you forgot the Bild Zeitung, the worst piece of media out there (comparable to the Sun I’ve heard):

      It is the best-selling European newspaper and has the sixteenth-largest circulation worldwide. Bild has been described as “notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism” and as having a huge influence on German politicians.

      They also bought a lot of other services, see this list, seems like it’s not maintained anymore but still.

      Let’s also not forget the time that Mathias Döpfner stole the German election in 2021 so that the FDP could screw over the coalition, see here:

      Zwei Tage vor der Bundestagswahl soll er Reichelt gedrängt haben: “Please Stärke die FDP. Wenn die sehr stark sind, können sie in Ampel so autoritär auftreten, dass die platzt und dann Jamaika funktioniert.”