The FBI recommends individuals take the following precautions...
Use an ad blocking extension when performing internet searches. Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. These ad blockers can be turned on and off within a browser to permit advertisements on certain websites while blocking advertisements on others.
mcv · 12h ago
The FBI caring more about people's rights than the German justice system? That would be an interesting twist.
duxup · 9h ago
I think at any large org you're going to get folks whose job it is to write up good advice and they do it sincerely and the content is produced and if it says "use an ad blocker" there it is.
Meanwhile others at the same org may have different feelings based on what they're tasked to do.
It's just a human organization thing.
------
I once worked at a company where HR was tasked with helping employees de-stress / relax. One group organized free lunches and even an outing or two. They were sometimes naive, but seemed like sincere and good faith efforts.
Later the company was reviewing some kind of expenditures and for whatever reason a separate group in HR became involved. They noticed that some of our 24/7 tech support staff didn't attend some of these lunches or outings. Of course they didn't all the events occurred during the work day and someone had to be on the phones and others worked weekends or nights or etc.
This other HR wanted it noted on their performance review as a negative that they didn't participate in HR de-stressing events ... pure madness (thankfully it didn't happen).
Two different groups, same org, conflicting choices.
Germany is jailing people for memes, raiding homes over jokes, and fining pensioners for calling politicians idiots. The government calls it “fighting hate.”
immibis · 8h ago
We've seen what happens if you have completely unlimited speech. One time last century in Germany, and one time in the USA right now.
Germany's going too far in the opposite direction now, though. I'm actually okay with the rule against insulting people as long as everyone knows that's the rule (note that you can't insult anyone, not just politicians) since it doesn't affect quality discourse yet it keeps low-quality discourse (the kind that dragged the USA into the mud) down. The way they're applying it to discussion about Israel is currently a problem. That's a separate law from the insult one. They're claiming that any criticism of Israel's actions is antisemitic hate speech, which is of course illegal.
Note that supporting the principle doesn't mean I support the implementation. If it were up to me it would be only a slap on the wrist fine except in very severe cases (like organizing a hate protest) and I don't know what level of checks and balances would be enough to ensure the classification of "hate" doesn't devolve into what it has become.
mcv · 7h ago
There's a big difference between creating an atmosphere of hate against vulnerable minorities, and and criticizing a minister of economics.
Criticism of the government is absolutely vital. It's the very reason why free speech is so important. And that seems to be what the article is addressing.
Using "free speech" to silence and persecute minorities, and create a hostile atmosphere for them, is the opposite of free speech, abusing the space it was granted by free speech, and inevitably leads to serious restrictions on free speech, as we're currently seeing in the US.
These two things are not the same.
ponector · 6h ago
>> criticizing a minister
But using memes with real Nazi for this, in Germany, is too much. And they got a fine, not a prison term. Fair enough.
mcv · 6h ago
I guess the article conveniently skipped over that detail.
immibis · 3h ago
It wasn't for criticising the minister, it was for insulting him. You're allowed to say "Robert Habeck is incredibly wrong on these particular points, has been consistently wrong for his entire career, and he is poorly suited to being the minister for economics." You're not allowed to say "Robert Habeck is a moron." It's like the Hacker News comment guidelines, but for real life!
One major plot hole: Despite the law ostensibly applying equally to everyone, there is zero chance that Robert Habeck would ever get in trouble for saying "Martijn Vos is a moron." That's because he's an Important Person and you're not.
Germany *is* completely totalitarian on speech right now, but only on the issue of Israel/Palestine.
riedel · 11h ago
I guess that is a bit of a misunderstanding of the separation of powers. This court is the highest civil/criminal court which only decides precisely on the text of the law. It has IMHO less interpretation freedom than Germanys supreme Court. Also as far I understand it only sends back the decision to the next lower court because it did not weight the argument that HTML might be code. Copyright on software in Germany is btw strangely different from artistic copyright in many parts. I can imagine that police or the the BSI would share the FBI's opinion. However, I doubt that even if this goes through, politicians will see a need to chance the law or make it more precise in this case. Actually much worse is Germany's hacker law, which endangers pretty much every security research. Although many people acknowledge the problem and there were ridiculous legal cases, there has been so little movement to abandon it.
gnfargbl · 12h ago
> Axel Springer’s argument is that when Adblock Plus blocks or manipulates its website code (‘computer program’) present in the user’s browser, that amounts to a violation of its exclusive right of modification available under § 69c (2) and its reproduction right under § 69c (1).
A direct analogy here would seem to be a newspaper publisher arguing that if a reader chooses to fold up the newspaper into an origami duck, then the publisher's copyright has been infringed.
jasode · 12h ago
>A direct analogy here would seem to be a newspaper publisher arguing that if a reader chooses to fold up the newspaper into an origami duck,
No, that type of manipulation isn't the legal argument Axel Springer is trying to use. It has nothing to do with re-using newspapers/books as birdcage liner, or fireplace kindling, etc.
Instead, Axel is focusing on the manipulation of the text/bytes itself (i.e. the HTML rewrite). A better direct analogy would be the lawsuits against devices deleting ads or muting "bad words" from tv broadcasts and movies. E.g.:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/child-safe-viewing-a
That's the legal angle they used to pressure ReplayTV to remove the automatic Commercial Skip feature from their DVR.
And yes, sometimes us nerds really want to slippery-slope those lawsuits into wild scenarios such as ... "But doesn't that also mean that when I shut my eyes at a tv commercial during a baseball game or go the bathroom during an ad it's a copyright violation?!?" .... No, the courts don't see it as the same thing.
Probably the more convincing analogy to justify ruling against Axel is the more prosaic "Reader Mode" in browsers that analyze HTML and rewrite it. Is Apple Safari Reader Mode a "copyright violation" ?!? I hope not.
BobaFloutist · 8h ago
If I have a volunteer service where people ask me to come after the paperboy and individually redact all the ads in the newspaper with a marker, am I breaking the same law?
mr_mitm · 7h ago
No
kps · 5h ago
Why not? You're creating a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder.
scotty79 · 2h ago
Because software has insane legal protections that no other medium has.
protimewaster · 11h ago
I wonder if it has different implications for different types of adblocking, then. A DNS-level block doesn't modify any copyrighted data, unless they're contending that the addresses returned by DNS servers are copyrighted. And that would seem to potentially pose major hurdles for the functionality of the internet.
I also wonder how it's made distinct from an addon that does something like block malware on a website. Surely that must be modifying copyrighted data too? Are some modifications allowed, I guess? Surely if something like an accessibility addon modifies the data, that's acceptable, right?
anigbrowl · 2h ago
But the decision as written (or rather, as translated; I'm not fluent in German) would seem to make modifications to web page from the browser's inspection console illegal as well.
morkalork · 10h ago
What if I have a friend who volunteers to take a black sharpie to my newspapers and remove all the ads and content I've told them in advance that I don't like, before I read the paper? And that friend lives in the computer?
mr_mitm · 10h ago
The law in question is specifically about computer programs. It applies to neither newspapers nor friends. This whole thing is not about what ought to be right, but what the current law says.
outlore · 11h ago
a cosmic bit flip could manipulate bytes on a computer...
mr_mitm · 10h ago
And hail can damage a car, that doesn't mean that vandalism has to become legal. Or what was your point?
sidewndr46 · 12h ago
Wouldn't using a microfilm reader also violate this right? I know lots of older newspapers were only available on microfilm when I was younger.
scotty79 · 2h ago
Does using microfilm reader modify a computer software to circumvent their ability to make money off of the copyrighted content?
If not, then it's fine.
card_zero · 12h ago
I assume (tell me if I'm wrong) this only applies to published origami duck versions of newspapers, because they're still copies. Or (?) published tools with the purpose of folding a specific newspaper up into an origami duck. Or (?) for folding any newspaper. Because, I don't know why, makes no sense. But anyway it doesn't apply to things you do privately. Or does it?
Edit: a sibling comment points out that it's about editing the text, not folding the paper, but I still have the same questions: is it supposed to be a copyright violation (even if too small to sue over) if you cut and paste with a newspaper you bought, in private? And is a tool with the specific purpose to help you do this - "newspaper scissors" - also a copyright violation?
joshka · 8h ago
Technically, a more direct analogy would be that some newspaper print on demand service exists, and the instructions for printing are distributed to the machines that print the newspapers, but are modified during distribution before the newpaper is printed by the reciever.
As much as I'm pro ad blockers, this seems like a reasonable reading of the law. An interesting way to convince yourself of this is to find a solid line that you could draw based purely on a set of principals grounded by some legal standard about what the difference between a desktop computer program, a downloadable JavaScript program, CSS and HTML really is in terms of how they cause a computer to act on the information.
That said, I think you could fairly reasonably find that section 69e of the copyright act (english translation [1]) applies to adblock software, though I'd imagine the plaintiff would probably argue that the use of an adblock software interferes with their interests.
---
Section 69e
Decompilation
(1) The rightholder’s consent is not required where reproduction of the code or translation of its form within the meaning of section 69c nos. 1 and 2 is indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
1. the acts are performed by the licensee or by another person authorised to use a copy of a program or on their behalf by a person empowered to do so;
2. the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been made readily available to the persons referred to in no. 1;
3. the acts are confined to those parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability.
(2) Information obtained through acts as referred to in subsection (1) may not be
1. used for purposes other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created program,
2. given to third parties, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created program,
3. used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program which is substantially similar in its expression or for any other acts which infringe copyright.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are to be interpreted such that their application neither impairs the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably impairs the rightholder’s legitimate interests.
I think most apt analogy would be someone taking pile of free to distribute newspapers and feeding them to machine that automatically cuts out the adds and then distributes them again...
card_zero · 12h ago
No, they distribute the machines.
interloxia · 12h ago
Are the instructions to make the machines still safe?
card_zero · 11h ago
Ooh. A dangerous question! "This shirt is classified as a munition", etc.
scotty79 · 2h ago
> A direct analogy here would seem to be a newspaper publisher arguing that if a reader chooses to fold up the newspaper into an origami duck, then the publisher's copyright has been infringed.
That only shows how idiotically abusive are protections awarded to proprietary software.
Modern websites are software. That's a fact. According to the rules, Axel Springer is right. It's just that we don't want them to be right because applying the rules here leads to bothersome outcome.
I hope Germany rules according to the letter of the law and bans browser extensions that modify web applications. Because only suffering can make law change to something more reasonable. Lenient rulings protect bad laws.
charcircuit · 12h ago
Folding it into a paper duck is tranformative. Where a webpage, but without the ads is not transformative.
card_zero · 12h ago
I'm happy to have ads replaced with ducks if that's what's required by law.
FollowingTheDao · 12h ago
This is a true story. My mother would cut out many advertisements in the newspaper when we were young that she did not want us to see. She was the first ad-blocker and it scares me to think she would have been arrested for "piracy".
danaris · 12h ago
No, because when you fold up a newspaper, that doesn't create a new copy.
The problem is that copyright laws, at least in most jurisdictions, have never been updated to cope with the fact that computers copy things so many times. Including to load content into memory so they can display it to you. (And on the web, they also often count downloading it to a tempfile in your cache as a separate copy!)
So while the website may grant you a license to download its content as-is for viewing, that doesn't mean they grant you a license to modify it and copy it again.
Yes, this is an utterly idiotic interpretation of copyright law, that effectively breaks the internet and much of what computers do. However, from a particular point of view, it is one that follows logically.
... makes only one exception obligatory: transient or incidental copying as part of a network transmission or legal use ...
general1726 · 12h ago
Or if you would just not look at a billboard on your ride to work and you would be fined for that. Imagine that.
pu_pe · 13h ago
So if someone attempts to run malware when I visit their page, I am legally obliged to let them run it? Absurd and absolutely non-enforceable.
entropi · 12h ago
While it is completely absurd, I don't see why it would be non-enforceable. They can very well enforce it.
Here is one way to do it: they could take a page out of google's Web Environment Integrity proposal and make it illegal to serve any page within Germany unless the integrity is proven. Done. VPNs are problematic? Ban them. Seems very enforceable to me.
Why do you think it is un-enforceable?
tux3 · 12h ago
Web Environment Integrity was so heavily criticized at the time that it made Google itself backtrack. The same Google that forged ahead with Manifest V3. There is no realistic way the German government could get websites to implement an even worse version of that.
The whole Web would simply become incompatible with Germany. So this would be trivial to bypass on a technical level, and unacceptable on a social level. Completely unenforceable indeed.
entropi · 12h ago
> Web Environment Integrity was so heavily criticized at the time that it made Google itself backtrack. The same Google that forged ahead with Manifest V3. There is no realistic way the German government could get websites to implement an even worse version of that.
I don't think this is a good comparison, though. Google cannot force people to use WEI -yet-. The government can.
>The whole Web would simply become incompatible with Germany.
I think the ad-supported web would just LOVE this idea and would become compatible with Germany ASAP.
> So this would be trivial to bypass on a technical level
I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a way for the tech-savvy. But all the trivial ways can very well be blocked.
> unacceptable on a social level
In Germany, you cannot install security cameras in a building unless all the owners agree, on grounds of privacy. But the ISPs keep all of your traffic logs, law firms get these logs, and mass-send cease-and-desist letters using automated systems. This is also not particularly acceptable, but it happens everyday and looks like it is very enforceable.
Lets not be naive and think this is unenforceable on the grounds of being "socially unacceptable".
FollowingTheDao · 12h ago
It is 100% enforceable. So get your host files ready if you live in Germany becasue all the ad blockers are about to be gone.
charcircuit · 12h ago
You can instead have your browser abort and not show the page instead of trying to modify it.
beej71 · 12h ago
Kinda sounds like hitting the "stop" button mid-load might be a copyright violation...
jauntywundrkind · 10h ago
Anti-circumvention laws are heinous. Governments look like absolute fools giving legal backing to this absurd premise that people have no right to modify or change the world about them. We can re-paint a car, rip a page out of a book.
The idea that a page that's been copied over to us must sacrosanctly be viewed only as intended is absurd. Our speech rights must grant us a right to use tools to view and see things as we might dream, not merely as provided to us.
The war within the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace has really really come to a roiling boil in the past couple years, with all sorts of states trying to declare control over how their populations connect to the global information system. In 95% of cases, I think it makes the state look like an absolute fool.
And very rarely is it being done in accordance with the will of the states people, which is quite chilling!! So called democratic states, with elite capture, doing ill against the free thinking world. These are losers, professional idiots at best, an actively working against humanity for shitty shady hidden motives more likely alas. They are losers, and while this will likely only intensify & make the world tenser and worse and obstructed and jammed up, I have some faith that they will continue to lose their war, that JP Barlow's triumphalism over their shitty ways will keep proving out. These people are idiots, and powerless, and the courts trying to enforce these bad unenforceable dumb laws only illegitemizes the idea of governance. Which I believe strongly in, and want to be a force for good!! But alas, not here.
benoau · 13h ago
If users are compelled to view ads than websites should be liable if those ads violate privacy laws or distribute malware.
b3lvedere · 13h ago
My infrastructure is my infrastructure. If i choose not to pass certain data, then that is my decision. There is no way in which i can be forced to pass through certain data on it. Contracts and TOS may require access to certain data locations in order to function correctly, but this does not absolve them from enforcing it. Sorry, but my current DNS resolver does not work very well with certain data points that just want to show me ads :)
No comments yet
ndriscoll · 13h ago
Or funnel to fraud/scammers. But ad companies and publishers should be liable for those things regardless. The choice to "scale" by not vetting any of their business partners is theirs.
iamacyborg · 13h ago
If they’re using a dynamic auction mechanism then you can fairly safely assume they’re violating European privacy laws.
csdreamer7 · 13h ago
Depending on the jurisdiction; they are.
Mindwipe · 13h ago
In Germany they would be.
freilanzer · 13h ago
That's a very good point.
__s · 13h ago
Seems like their argument would also apply to:
1. using antivirus software to infringe on copyright of viruses
2. using any bookmarklet
3. scratching out typos in a book you're reading
4. game mods
atomicnumber3 · 13h ago
This is a mistake programmers often make. Our code of laws is not a proof, or a program, or a set of logical axioms. It's interpretations, often conflicting, of legislature. It also takes into account intent and subject matter and various other things.
It doesn't matter that ad block is logically equivalent to bookmarklets. If elected judges determine it's illegal, none of these "nerd" defenses will work. The only defense is to vote in legislators who will pass laws protecting it.
ndr · 12h ago
It's true that it's at time conflicting, it's not true that it's meant to be so.
The term of art for this is "legal certainty" and finding the inconsistencies help iron out when something is off.
So yes, it does matter how logically an ad block is equivalent to bookmarklets, because inconsistencies crack and consistency composes.
I get your point that judges can rule, but it's not the end all be all of it.
Joker_vD · 13h ago
> elected judges
Judges are not elected, in Germany at least. They are appointed.
alphager · 12h ago
Judges are not legislators.
bevhill · 13h ago
Law is the recorded decisions of those with power. There are ways other than legislation to create law that we're only just beginning to explore.
atomicnumber3 · 13h ago
I'm not thrilled at the idea of trying to explore alternate methods to enforce laws.
Joker_vD · 13h ago
What? Executive orders has been around since forever, and has been one of the main sources of law until very recently (in historical terms). Unless you're alluding to something completely different.
shadowgovt · 12h ago
Can you provide more information / clarification on what those other ways are?
NoMoreNicksLeft · 13h ago
>If elected judges determine it's illegal, none of these "nerd" defenses will work.
The nerd defense of "I will use technology to avoid being caught" does work, and it's the only nerd defense worth pursuing.
JKCalhoun · 13h ago
In my youth when I was quite the "pirate", I used to tear the pages out of magazines I had purchased that had only ads on both the front and back of the page. (A kind of compression algorithm for which I got no patent, BTW.)
ActionHank · 13h ago
Opening devtools and changing things on any website that is not your own.
h4kor · 13h ago
IIRC there has been a case in Germany where it was ruled that opening devtools is hacking and therefore illegal intend. A person found a vulnerability by looking at the website source (using devtools) and informed the company. They then sued him using the "Hackerparagraph" (§ 202c StGB) for use of hacker tools.
"(1) Any person who prepares a criminal offence [Wer eine Straftat nach] pursuant to Section 202a or Section 202b by: 1. passwords or other security codes that enable access to data (Section 202a (2)), or 2. computer programs whose purpose is to commit such an act, manufactures, procures, sells, transfers to another, distributes or otherwise makes available, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with a fine. (2) Section 149 (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis."
Not sure how this is twisted into opening devtools.
"Among other things, criminal charges were filed against the Federal Office for Information Security, as the office allegedly violated the law itself." But were dropped. Sounds like this is a vague law that can lead to a lot of harassing intimidation, followed by cases being dropped.
Izkata · 8h ago
Substitute later parts with earlier parts they refer to and it's much clearer: "computer programs whose purpose is to" "enable access to data", when used "[to prepare] a criminal offense". I guess it depends on what the vulnerability was.
xtracto · 12h ago
Shit... sometimes I am so happy of living in my lawless 3rd world country. Between the USA crazy Nazism and Europe crazy GDPR and Germany's stupid laws.
Apparently 1st world countries have solved all other problems and are splitting hairs looking for stupid things to legislate.
card_zero · 13h ago
> computer programs are treated as literary works under the Copyright Act
So this applies to published adblockers and things, I guess. You could roll your own, just like you could tear pages out of a book you bought. You could mod a game privately.
If the adblocker-or-whatever is published, it's like publishing a mod to somebody's book. Like a script you point at an ebook that changes it. Is that considered the same as publishing a copy the book with small parts changed? Why?
The article highlights the line in the German copyright act about exclusive rights to "the translation, adaptation, arrangement and other modifications of a computer program". I'm unclear on the scope here. I don't think this applies to people making edits to copyrighted programs in private.
GuB-42 · 13h ago
I am not sure about the legality of game mods.
Most companies tolerate them, sometimes encourage them, as long is it is not disruptive. Cracks and cheats however are definitely illegal and companies often take action against people who write or use such tools, usually account bans, but there have been some lawsuits the game company won.
Fundamentally, there is no difference between a cheating tool and a harmless mod, and many mods are baltent copyright infringement using assets without a license. But because mods are generally beneficial to the company, they have no intention to use legal means to stop them.
shadowgovt · 12h ago
This varies from country to country.
In the United States, it's legal to modify your machine to interpret the programs running on it other than the way intended by the machine creator and the program author (Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc, 1992). But every nation has its own system of laws and the precedents of one aren't binding on another (and I don't, personally, know if the Galoob v. Nintendo precedent extends to modifying the data on a PC or only protects the far-more-complicated approach of intermediating between PC storage and the CPU).
To my perception, the position of mods in the gaming ecosystem is mostly, for want of a better term, a "gentleman's agreement" or "gentleman's understanding." An awful lot of game devs got started by modding other games, and they feel more than zero empathy for the folks who are basically learning to be the next generation of developers, if not future employees. It's a bit akin to Adobe's position on cracked copies of Photoshop: they reserve the right to sue so companies can't just thumb their nose at their IP rights and use their product with no remuneration, but individual non-corporate users of pirated copies are, at worst, unpaid advertising for the product and, at best, future customers. Some game dev houses are exempt from this "empathy rule;" Nintendo is famously litigious (although even then, they tend to target projects that are, whether the developer knows it or not, in direct competition with Nintendo; AM2R puttered along happily for years until Nintendo decided to release their own Metroid 2 remake).
btilly · 13h ago
Your comment made me imagine someone writing a virus, then suing everyone who wound up with a copy for copyright violation.
Is it absurd? Yes. On the other hand, absurdity has never slowed a lawyer...
kro · 13h ago
Likely also the in-built Firefox privacy blocking.
charcircuit · 13h ago
Those are all copyright infringement in America too. The final one has already resulted in many cease and desists and lawsuits.
card_zero · 13h ago
Really! But what's the legal argument there? Nothing is copied, it's a mod.
charcircuit · 13h ago
Copyright includes the rights for controlling the modification of the work.
anigbrowl · 2h ago
Questionable. It certainly prohibits people from selling modified versions of the work, but it's doubtful whether that prohibition can extend to you choosing to modify it yourself.
card_zero · 12h ago
In what sense, though? Publishing a modified copy, sure. But why extend that to a thing-that-modifies-a-copy-you-have?
miyoji · 12h ago
Markers are illegal because I can use them to cross out words in books I've bought?
charcircuit · 12h ago
I don't think there is any jurisdiction where markers are illegal.
GeoAtreides · 5h ago
is that really what OP's argument was about?
forinti · 13h ago
> For German publisher Axel Springer, ad blocking solutions are mechanisms that fundamentally undermine the company’s ability to generate revenue.
So they want to change the law so that they can impose their business model on people?
That's absurd.
shadowgovt · 12h ago
Their argument is that the law, as currently written, should protect their capacity to impose their business model (in the "If you don't like it, you don't get to read our stuff" sense).
They may be right; it happens all the time that laws have unintended consequences.
forinti · 12h ago
If they want to be so protective of their content, they should put up a paywall.
lyu07282 · 12h ago
Their purpose is to publish propaganda anyway so I don't understand why they would want to prevent anybody from reading their socially rotting filth. They want to have their nazi cake and eat it too it seems.
amelius · 13h ago
Wait, that means that whenever I'm looking at a billboard, somebody is getting money from me.
Sounds like stealing by just obstructing my view.
How do I get these filthy hands out of my pocket?
sidewndr46 · 12h ago
You joke, but that is a real thing where I live. There are preserved view corridors guaranteed by law. But even if you don't have a view under one of those, you can sue if someone obscures your view of some select buildings. Those plaintiffs wins those cases, every time.
lifestyleguru · 12h ago
Oh god, I felt a ray of hope for a moment. Which place is it and what's the name of the regulation?
npteljes · 11h ago
Hungary also has this. We call it "panorama rights" somewhat confusingly, as in English, panorama rights refer to something else.
In Hungary this right refers to homeowners. It says that it's illegal to obstruct someone's view in specific ways, for example, to build something that puts an overly large shade in an otherwise previously sunny yard. The newer building becomes legally questionable (even valid building permits), if it causes "unnecessary disturbance" to a homeowner's view.
Many adblockers work by blocking dns resolution, which does not alter code. It's like putting on glasses which block out certain words of a book you're reading. No alteration of the source material or host.
Ekaros · 12h ago
I suppose if this comes to pass such glasses would be illegal. As they go against moral rights of the author.
Astro-Domine · 11h ago
And then color accessibility settings such as filters would be illegal when reading any colored material since they would corrupt the author's intent.
Does it apply to organic, individual differences in perception?
Maybe when we all get a neural interface we can be calibrated as per some industry standard profile.
Workaccount2 · 12h ago
What does the ad-free internet look like?
People hate ads, they are annoying and provide virtually no value to the end user.
People hate subscriptions, they cost money, are annoying to track, and gravitate towards being impossible to cancel.
Donations are feel good, but no one donates. Conversion rates tend to be <5% of users.
This topic always draws tons of outrage and anger over ads, but no one ever provides a solution besides "Users are entitled to everything on the internet and don't owe anyone anything. If you put content online, you are dumb to expect compensation, but I really love your work!"
benterix · 12h ago
> People hate ads, they are annoying and provide virtually no value to the end user.
[Today.] In the past (1980s, maybe?) I remember getting these fat volumes consisting of only ads (they had everything, from clothing to electronics to LEGO sets) and browsing them with my siblings for hours on end, and fantasizing about getting some of these.
I believe the old style ads, where the website you visit serves locally hosted ads that are in line with the subject matter, not only are not frustrating but actually provide some value as they help you to discover more about things you are already interested in.
HDThoreaun · 10h ago
These are also blocked by adblockers though.
beej71 · 12h ago
I fucking dream of going back to the Internet where no one is compensated for their work. I'm not compensated for mine, and I don't want to be. Read freely!
ndriscoll · 12h ago
> but I really love your work
This is your point of confusion. The people you're talking to are indifferent to your work. If it's there and someone links it to them, they might read it, but if it's not, that's fine too. They're sure as hell not going to run malware for the privilege though.
It's been a running joke for decades in discussion forums that people don't read the articles. They don't pay for it because it's actually not worth anything to them.
card_zero · 12h ago
I don't know, apparently the internet can't work, too bad. Let's cancel it for now and come back to this whole "internet" project when we figure it out. In the meantime there's ham radio, doesn't seem to suffer from the same "who will pay for my content" hoo-ha.
ItsBob · 12h ago
I remember a time when the internet was ran by techies and hobbyists for zero money, zero expectation etc. Sure, there were some banner ads on some websites but very few mega-corps wanting their pound of flesh like today.
A hobbyist-run internet can still be done today too... no need for mega-corporations to run every website when it costs a few ££ per month to run a web server that could easily handle millions of monthly connections.
Also, it's not my job to validate a scummy business model like advertising: if they (the corporations with ads) want to use them as their primary revenue source that's on them, not me!
GeoAtreides · 5h ago
>What does the ad-free internet look like?
Quieter. More focused. Better.
zb3 · 12h ago
So you expect compensation for your comment? If not, then here's your answer.. I want to read what others _wanted_ to write, not what they wrote for money.
card_zero · 11h ago
You made me check damninteresting.com, and I'm delighted to see that it's back again, with a contributed post about adenoids and a Bellows post about word games, and (groan) one of those "free daily word games" that many sites have now, presumably in an attempt to get people to donate regularly.
I know Alan Bellows wants to write, but the thing is, he wants to write for money, so that he can write and live. I want to read it, but the other thing is, I don't want to give him any money. I suppose I might do if I had like ten times as much of the stuff, but I don't. The whole situation is enigmatic.
zb3 · 10h ago
We need to differentiate between "he wants to write instead of working as X" and "he wants to write and he is willing to do that in his spare time".
I know that this isn't that simple.. someone who's not employed or has a job where they can mostly do nothing might just "want" to write and be able to, while others might _really really_ want to write but they can't afford it.
Still, as long as there exists someone who wants - and is able to - give me good content with no strings attached, I'd rather consume that than content written for money.
Berniek · 3h ago
This is going to be easily overturned. The ad blockers use the dns service and that is not part of what copyright protects.
Modifying the results of dns requests is not protected by the copyright law itself. The argument could be made that giving "false" or "changed results" could be modifying the websites programming but you can't have it both ways, saying that your use of a free and public service is part of your copyright rights is surely drawing a long bow.
It could be managed by implementing dns on the website (encrypted) to prevent normal dns from being used and hence blocked
mr_mitm · 9h ago
So the law which they're using here says that only the copyright owner is allowed to modify or rearrange (whatever that means) a program. Couldn't you argue that an adblocker doesn't do that? I run the "program" of the web site host, which produces a DOM tree in the browser. Then I run a second program, the adblocker, which removes certain elements from the DOM tree before rendering. At no point am I modifying their code. At most, I'm modifying the browser's program, but since the browser has an interface to facilitate precisely that in the form of addons, we can safely assume that the manufacturer of the browser is fine with that.
Edit: nevermind, I read the whole thing. The lower court argued as I did, but in revision they apparently found that the DOM tree is code generated by code and thus an expression of the program.
rickdeckard · 12h ago
> Axel Springer’s argument is that when Adblock Plus blocks or manipulates its website code (‘computer program’) present in the user’s browser, that amounts to a violation of its exclusive right of modification available under § 69c (2) and its reproduction right under § 69c (1).
It's really interesting, because the addition of Ads is not wanted nor in any way beneficial to the consumer in this transaction, it just happens to be part of the business model of the seller that he now seeks to protect.
Would the same apply if I buy a printer and modify it to use 3rd party cartridges?
How about a company that could remove the addictive elements of cigarettes?
If you want me to provide additional revenue on top of the transaction, then enter a contract with me. Just because you made it "free" doesn't mean you must be legally allowed to force me into some other consumption...
mr_mitm · 9h ago
§69 is specifically about computer programs, so it doesn't apply to printer cartridges or cigarettes.
HDThoreaun · 10h ago
The addition of a payment is not wanted nor in any way beneficial to the consumer when they sign up for any subscription. Guess what, that’s how the content is paid for. You think they should just make stuff for free? The deal is you get the content in exchange for loading the ads.
jocoda · 5h ago
>Guess what, that’s how the content is paid for.
No. Just because you say that this is how it works does not make it so. That's total rubbish. Yes, advertising works. But it works on hope, that's all. If your hope costs you money, well that's on you.
rickdeckard · 9h ago
That's not what I'm pondering.
On payment there is a clear transaction and a contract is made. Both parties agree on their duties for this exchange.
In this case there is no contract, instead the selling party doesn't want a contract (paywall) to reduce friction, but is packaging the product with something the user is supposed to consume, and is now seeking to secure this ROI somehow.
igleria · 13h ago
A little bit tangential but: I hated while living in Germany that some movies were legally available ONLY with german dubs. While making the only alternative, piracy... risky.
HeckFeck · 13h ago
Are subs or dubs best for anime? In Germany this endless debate has been finally settled by the state. Next week they will rule on vim or emacs, then they promise to end the question of tabs vs spaces.
jnsaff2 · 13h ago
I remember childhood in the 90s with german tv channels.
It was a bit confusing when Roseanne and Kim Basinger had the exact same voice.
blueflow · 13h ago
Or John Dorian and Light Yagami.
b3lvedere · 13h ago
When we were kids, my friend was convinced Clint Eastwood was a German.
sneak · 13h ago
Germany still hasn’t banned VPNs yet, so there are still non-risky options here for torrenting.
igleria · 13h ago
I know that technically you can configure your torrent client to disconnect if by some reason the vpn connection dropped, but I was so paranoid about f*ing it up that I just accepted defeat. I think living there for 4 and a half years really changed me (still waiting on red lights while on foot even if the street is dead at 3 AM, for example).
immibis · 24m ago
If you want a certain advanced networking program to only use a VPN, see if it has an option to force it to use a particular network adapter. A VPN shows up as a fake network adapter.
NitpickLawyer · 12h ago
The proper way to do this is to use a seedbox (basically a VPS w/ lots of storage, in a pirate-friendly jurisdiction, that comes preinstalled with all the tools you'd need). It's weird that top AI labs have been caught torrenting stuff, when the solution is obvious, and doesn't leave traces (i.e. no meta IP ranges would have been leaked)...
mantra2 · 1h ago
Familiar with Seedboxes but do you really get off worry free just because the hardware exists in a different country (probably on leaseweb)? Wouldn’t it matter where the company was based itself or is the biggest hope that you’ve become too much of a pain in the ass to deal with?
sneak · 3h ago
Get a cheap travel router from gl.inet and set it up as a VPN client with its own wifi ssid. Turn on its leak protection (drop connection when VPN is inactive). Connect your devices to that, and delete your main wifi credentials from them so they don’t accidentally hop back on.
Torrent to your heart’s content.
I actually browse full time like this; all traffic leaving my house via my ISP is VPN (or some limited exclusions that all use TLS).
zeta0134 · 13h ago
> The decision notes that this is not just about “changing variable data in the memory of a computer, but rather changing code created by the bytecode of the website ‘computer program’ as a form of expression of the website programming itself.”
Everyone who actually writes software, meanwhile, and understands that code IS data, is collectively facepalming right now. I felt the tremors. Nevermind that almost since its inception, JavaScript has always been an optional component of the web, and my browser very well lets me turn that off. The ability to do so is critical to my security posture. That it also happens to remove distracting visual noise is a nice side bonus.
Firmly, without reservation: if you deliver to me content A, I am under NO OBLIGATION to actually consume content B, merely because you included it in the same package.
sgc · 12h ago
Next there will be AI overseers to monitor whether you flip past the ads too quickly while reading a magazine.
We have technology to apply almost unlimited controls on people. The only thing protecting humanity (very feebly right now) is legislation that works at the service of human dignity. But we stand on a precipice, and we are slipping.
rickdeckard · 12h ago
> Firmly, without reservation: if you deliver to me content A, I am under NO OBLIGATION to actually consume content B, merely because you included it in the same package.
The legal view here seems to be that a third party removed content B while delivering content A, and therefore violated the copyright of the provided work.
It's not even framed as redistribution of copyrighted works, it's violating the "exclusive right of modification available under § 69c"
I'm curious how this will play out.
The only content you're interested in is content A, and the supplier chose a business model which requires you to consume content B against your will. Now they sued a third party which is stripping content B as a service to you.
I believe a case needs to be made that content B is not part of the original work provided.
Not easy though...
zeta0134 · 11h ago
It may be substantially simpler to acknowledge that there is no binding contract involved between me and the supplier of content B. Were this some sort of purchase or legal arrangement that I had consented to in some way, then the content provider would have a much stronger case.
In practice, I arrive at any given site with nothing more than a crude hyperlink and almost no description of the contents. (Maybe I have a search page summary, often I don't. If I do it's usually rather out of date and incomplete.) I cannot trivially know whether content B is present, or what sort of agreement I may or may not be entering into, until data is actually transferred to my device. By that point, I typically already have content B, before I could possibly make an informed choice about whether I wanted to spend my bandwidth downloading it, what cost it may represent, etc.
Technological solutions already exist here. A provider can choose to lock content behind a paywall, communicating an actual cost, and require that I pay it. Providers can also usually quite trivially detect ad blocking technology, and require that I disable it before delivering the content. (At that point, I am making an informed choice!) A provider doing neither of these things has a very weak case imho. I suppose we'll see if the courts agree.
rickdeckard · 11h ago
Agree, but the publisher of content A is also the supplier of content B. They are sourced differently on delivery but they are legally delivered as a single piece of "original work" (as this is a law for PC-software, all included libraries in some app are also part of the "original work")
Maybe a case can be made that the work is not shipped in entirety but needs to be assembled at the consumer...?
nobody9999 · 7h ago
>I believe a case needs to be made that content B is not part of the original work provided.
>Not easy though...
IANAL, and definitely not eine Rechtsanwalt.
That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes place moments before that ad is displayed.
Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their "expression" being thwarted?
Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here."
If that's actually the case, just having a box where the ad would be that says "this is a space for advertisements" should be enough to satisfy "violations" of the copyright owner's "expression."
rickdeckard · 6h ago
> Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here."
Or he steers away from that and states "my program places an Ad here, removing this operation modifies my work", making not the Ad itself part of the work but the process (and outcome?) of an Ad being placed there...
I do hope there's a better legal conclusion the court can take here. If I am legally required to execute arbitrary code on my machine as part of some openly accessible content, I expect a clear contract to be agreed upon...
sidewndr46 · 12h ago
Interestingly, if I use a 'browser' like wget I've basically transformed that computer program into what amounts to a non-program. Wget doesn't even have the facilities to run that Javascript. So it is possible that using wget in Germany is illegal?
rickdeckard · 12h ago
I guess legally at some point you have to either execute or "decompile" that non-program, and the same violation would apply if you remove the ads ("violation of its exclusive right of modification").
The complex part here is that they don't sue you as the consumer, or consider the execution/decompilation illegal, but AdBlock as the tool which removes the unwanted content from it.
In that interpretation the only legal way to consume the content is completely unmodified, and the seller built a business-model based on adding something that only he benefits from. Weird scenario...
xigoi · 10h ago
Given that someone was sued for opening the developer tools on a website, using wget would presumably constitute a death sentence.
miladyincontrol · 2h ago
Right, so can it be a violation of my site's content if a german politician accesses it without a crotchcrusher 5000 plugged in and functional?
eschneider · 12h ago
Are ads "blocked" if, instead of being presented to a human, they're redirected and read by an AI?
Ad Reading As a Service.
sceptic123 · 10h ago
Would an ad-blocker that put a black square over the screen where ads were placed, instead of rewriting the HTML, then bypass these laws?
ukoki · 12h ago
Ok so what if I run the website in a VM allowing full execution of ad/tracking code, and then stream the video to a "browser" that blocks out the adverts?
mrbluecoat · 12h ago
> This affects all cloud-based applications such as computer games, standard software, SAP, etc.
Court overreach
lifestyleguru · 13h ago
Quarrels about copyrights is one of the most favorite entertainment of Germans. Don't make mistake of engaging into this hopeless endeavour, and of course don't let them influence your local regulations.
HeckFeck · 13h ago
This will become its own genre of simulation game in Germany.
the_af · 12h ago
I thought their favorite entertainment was discussing the different types of asparagus. I'm told this is a popular topic of conversation in Germany.
Havoc · 3h ago
They decided the brits can’t have top spot for most shit internet legal framework
ChrisArchitect · 12h ago
Previously:
Germany at it again: now trying to reopen the "adblockers are illegal" debate
What bothers me the most is that these websites do not even know what advertisements they are publishing. It is not like a newspaper where they would have some editorial control.
Maybe I would not have a problem with this law if the websites were held responsible for the ads that contain malware.
unstatusthequo · 13h ago
I cannot even believe that is a question at all.
empressplay · 12h ago
Wouldn't their complaint be solved if ad blockers actually loaded the image (thus generating an 'impression') but didn't actually display it? Or displayed it with 0 opacity, or what-have-you?
Then everyone wins except the advertiser / ad network.
This is satire at its finest. Axel Springer's taboid "Bild" already blocks adblockers. Springer has a cooperation with copyright infringer OpenAI. Altman gets the Axel Springer Award:
Large scale copyright theft is fine, individual consumers have to watch ads.
richwater · 12h ago
Europe is absolutely cooked with it comes to Tech. No wonder they fall further and further behind on the world stage.
card_zero · 12h ago
Just because there's been no similar copyright case in America recently.
golbez9 · 6h ago
It's Joever for the EU
hagbard_c · 7h ago
Fortunately Europe is a lot bigger than Germany which, granted, does seem to be hell bent on becoming a rather large footnote in in history. Also German copyright law is seemingly modelled after one of the circles of Dante's Inferno so no surprise there.
shadowgovt · 12h ago
When considering law, it's always worth noting that the specific particulars are arbitrary and path-dependent. I think it'll be hard to draw any kinds of conclusions on this ruling (which doesn't find against ABP, merely kicks the issue down to the lower court for reconsideration, not unlike Oracle v. Google with regards to API copyrightability) without reading the whole thing.
(One piece in particular I'm personally naive on is what German legal precedent says about consumer's right to modify consumed material. In the US, an author's copyright doesn't stop me, the reader of a copy I bought, from highlighting the book up, or crossing out passages I don't like, or tearing pages out, or turning the thing into a delightful booksafe. Naively, I'd believe ABP should be considered in that category of thing: an accessibility tool people use to modify the material they consume to better fit their needs. It doesn't modify the author's original work and it doesn't grant the reader the right to transmit the modified work to someone else, so I'm unclear on how copyright protection should be thought to enter in here, and I bet the text of the ruling clarifies).
blacksmith_tb · 12h ago
Yes, the particularly odd thing to my eye is the lack of redistribution. My locally modified page infringes even though I am the only one who has seen it. Odd too that many kinds of blockers don't actually rewrite the markup at all, they just don't fetch assets from blocked endpoints, which doesn't seem like 'modifying the code' somehow.
was8309 · 11h ago
this is my confusion also - it sounds like they are conflating "modify and sell" with "modify and consume"
amelius · 9h ago
Large scale theft and/or brokering of personal information, let's call that piracy too.
tensor · 12h ago
If they ban ads then they must force companies to provide ad free options with realistic pricing. Ads are a hard line that I will not cross. Forced propaganda consumption is immoral.
rkomorn · 12h ago
Who's forcing you to consume what ads?
npteljes · 11h ago
It's force, even if we are technically able to not consume ads by for example not using the internet.
rkomorn · 11h ago
Just like what... you're forced to pay for the gas, electricity, or food you buy from someone else?
npteljes · 11h ago
Like plastering the roads with billboards. We don't want that in the online space. Or, not in the meatspace either, if you ask me.
rkomorn · 10h ago
I think your analogy is entirely wrong. Plastering roads with billboards isn't paying for the roads.
Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website.
anigbrowl · 2h ago
force companies to provide ad free options with realistic pricing
It's one way, but not necessarily the only way. There should be an option available for the people who do not want to be distracted by advertising.
npteljes · 8h ago
Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
nobody9999 · 7h ago
>Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website.
The problem with that interpretation is that such content that's being "plastered" (that is, unvetted third-party software which wants to execute on my property -- in fact, such ads are generally served from sites other than the one that I visited) over the website aren't actually part of the website.
They are third-party programs unrelated (except via a business relationship between the website proprietor and the ad network -- one that I have no part of, nor have I been consulted WRT said contract) to the website itself.
By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
I refuse to do so. As it is, after all, my property.
If the proprietor of a website doesn't like it, they can block access to the site for those (like myself) who use ad blockers (which some websites already do).
Whether I choose to block ads just because I don't like ads or because I'm trying to protect myself from malicious software distributed through those ad networks -- or both -- is irrelevant. My property is my property and I get to decide what code runs on it. Full stop.
rkomorn · 5h ago
Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want.
> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting).
Your choice should be "I don't want these ads/this code, no thanks for the content."
And you're right: websites that don't want users with ad blockers can themselves deny access, and if ad blockers explicitly announce themselves so that the website can make that decision, great. That'd be the fair thing, right?
My actual take on this has more nuance than I'd care to fit into a HN comment (of course).
I'm not dogmatically "pro ads". I've worked at ad-supported places and I plan / hope I never do again. I think the current web browsing experience is a nightmare (ads, clickbait, content specifically made longer to fit more ads and/or increase presence). It all sucks. I'm also not absolving all the people publishing sites who would disown third-party ads like "oh well WE don't pick what's displayed" from their responsibilities.
Ultimately, though, ads is how (nearly all) websites get paid, and just as I want to get paid for my work, I think I should pay others for theirs (or at least not benefit from their work if I don't want to pay). I don't try to get around paywalls, I don't try to get around sites that think my browser isn't giving them enough latitude. I just walk away. No one's forcing me to load their ads against my will.
nobody9999 · 4h ago
>Ads are part of "the website". They don't just magically show up (unrelated malware aside). They're there because the people running the site want ads there. They're content the website wants you to see. They're just not the part of the content you want.
Actually, they're not. Especially in the context of the German court's ruling. As I pointed out here[0]:
That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do
elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes
place moments before that ad is displayed.
Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will
be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be
displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their
"expression" being thwarted?
Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright
holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here."
That said, your argument is addressing the issue of "private property."
I don't disagree that folks should be paid for their work. That said, let's address not just ads, but a significant portion of the 'net that displays ads. That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes?
>> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
>I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting).
Let's say (as is true with most links I'm presented with) I'm unaware of the business model, quality and safety of that particular link. Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware? Should I assume that said site is a "good" site that won't hijack my private property and/or attempt to steal my PII and/or my money?
That's a big part of the problem. In most cases, I have absolutely no idea as to what I might find when clicking on a link. Do you believe that I should, in advance of doing so, metaphorically drop my pants, bend over and spread wide? Because that's essentially what browsing the web without an ad blocker is.
As such, I take a defensive posture and protect myself. If the owner of the website doesn't want me to do that, they are welcome to tell me so. At which point I can make up my mind whether or not I believe the content is worth my time, attention and/or money.
Requiring me to give up that time, attention and/or money without any idea as to the quality or safety of the data presented is like walking into a store (of a type and with an inventory that's completely unknown), handing the clerk a credit card and walking out with a sealed bag of who knows what.
Given your attitude, may I assume that you do that sort of thing all the time?
But requiring me in BOHICA[1] fashion to allow random strangers, sight unseen, to run arbitrary code on my private property to enrich themselves -- likely at my expense -- without even a by-your-leave seems more like a scam than a business model.
I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. You do you and visit every site without any script or ad blocking and with the naive hope that every site you visit is run by honest, decent human beings. Good luck with that. You're gonna need it.
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624
It's gone now. I wonder if that's a policy choice.
Edit: It just moved to https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2022/PSA221221
Meanwhile others at the same org may have different feelings based on what they're tasked to do.
It's just a human organization thing.
------
I once worked at a company where HR was tasked with helping employees de-stress / relax. One group organized free lunches and even an outing or two. They were sometimes naive, but seemed like sincere and good faith efforts.
Later the company was reviewing some kind of expenditures and for whatever reason a separate group in HR became involved. They noticed that some of our 24/7 tech support staff didn't attend some of these lunches or outings. Of course they didn't all the events occurred during the work day and someone had to be on the phones and others worked weekends or nights or etc.
This other HR wanted it noted on their performance review as a negative that they didn't participate in HR de-stressing events ... pure madness (thankfully it didn't happen).
Two different groups, same org, conflicting choices.
No comments yet
Germany is jailing people for memes, raiding homes over jokes, and fining pensioners for calling politicians idiots. The government calls it “fighting hate.”
Germany's going too far in the opposite direction now, though. I'm actually okay with the rule against insulting people as long as everyone knows that's the rule (note that you can't insult anyone, not just politicians) since it doesn't affect quality discourse yet it keeps low-quality discourse (the kind that dragged the USA into the mud) down. The way they're applying it to discussion about Israel is currently a problem. That's a separate law from the insult one. They're claiming that any criticism of Israel's actions is antisemitic hate speech, which is of course illegal.
Note that supporting the principle doesn't mean I support the implementation. If it were up to me it would be only a slap on the wrist fine except in very severe cases (like organizing a hate protest) and I don't know what level of checks and balances would be enough to ensure the classification of "hate" doesn't devolve into what it has become.
Criticism of the government is absolutely vital. It's the very reason why free speech is so important. And that seems to be what the article is addressing.
Using "free speech" to silence and persecute minorities, and create a hostile atmosphere for them, is the opposite of free speech, abusing the space it was granted by free speech, and inevitably leads to serious restrictions on free speech, as we're currently seeing in the US.
These two things are not the same.
But using memes with real Nazi for this, in Germany, is too much. And they got a fine, not a prison term. Fair enough.
One major plot hole: Despite the law ostensibly applying equally to everyone, there is zero chance that Robert Habeck would ever get in trouble for saying "Martijn Vos is a moron." That's because he's an Important Person and you're not.
Germany *is* completely totalitarian on speech right now, but only on the issue of Israel/Palestine.
A direct analogy here would seem to be a newspaper publisher arguing that if a reader chooses to fold up the newspaper into an origami duck, then the publisher's copyright has been infringed.
No, that type of manipulation isn't the legal argument Axel Springer is trying to use. It has nothing to do with re-using newspapers/books as birdcage liner, or fireplace kindling, etc.
Instead, Axel is focusing on the manipulation of the text/bytes itself (i.e. the HTML rewrite). A better direct analogy would be the lawsuits against devices deleting ads or muting "bad words" from tv broadcasts and movies. E.g.: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/child-safe-viewing-a
That's the legal angle they used to pressure ReplayTV to remove the automatic Commercial Skip feature from their DVR.
And yes, sometimes us nerds really want to slippery-slope those lawsuits into wild scenarios such as ... "But doesn't that also mean that when I shut my eyes at a tv commercial during a baseball game or go the bathroom during an ad it's a copyright violation?!?" .... No, the courts don't see it as the same thing.
Probably the more convincing analogy to justify ruling against Axel is the more prosaic "Reader Mode" in browsers that analyze HTML and rewrite it. Is Apple Safari Reader Mode a "copyright violation" ?!? I hope not.
I also wonder how it's made distinct from an addon that does something like block malware on a website. Surely that must be modifying copyrighted data too? Are some modifications allowed, I guess? Surely if something like an accessibility addon modifies the data, that's acceptable, right?
If not, then it's fine.
Edit: a sibling comment points out that it's about editing the text, not folding the paper, but I still have the same questions: is it supposed to be a copyright violation (even if too small to sue over) if you cut and paste with a newspaper you bought, in private? And is a tool with the specific purpose to help you do this - "newspaper scissors" - also a copyright violation?
As much as I'm pro ad blockers, this seems like a reasonable reading of the law. An interesting way to convince yourself of this is to find a solid line that you could draw based purely on a set of principals grounded by some legal standard about what the difference between a desktop computer program, a downloadable JavaScript program, CSS and HTML really is in terms of how they cause a computer to act on the information.
That said, I think you could fairly reasonably find that section 69e of the copyright act (english translation [1]) applies to adblock software, though I'd imagine the plaintiff would probably argue that the use of an adblock software interferes with their interests.
---
Section 69e Decompilation
(1) The rightholder’s consent is not required where reproduction of the code or translation of its form within the meaning of section 69c nos. 1 and 2 is indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
1. the acts are performed by the licensee or by another person authorised to use a copy of a program or on their behalf by a person empowered to do so;
2. the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been made readily available to the persons referred to in no. 1;
3. the acts are confined to those parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability.
(2) Information obtained through acts as referred to in subsection (1) may not be
1. used for purposes other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created program,
2. given to third parties, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created program,
3. used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program which is substantially similar in its expression or for any other acts which infringe copyright.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are to be interpreted such that their application neither impairs the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably impairs the rightholder’s legitimate interests.
---
[1]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...
That only shows how idiotically abusive are protections awarded to proprietary software.
Modern websites are software. That's a fact. According to the rules, Axel Springer is right. It's just that we don't want them to be right because applying the rules here leads to bothersome outcome.
I hope Germany rules according to the letter of the law and bans browser extensions that modify web applications. Because only suffering can make law change to something more reasonable. Lenient rulings protect bad laws.
The problem is that copyright laws, at least in most jurisdictions, have never been updated to cope with the fact that computers copy things so many times. Including to load content into memory so they can display it to you. (And on the web, they also often count downloading it to a tempfile in your cache as a separate copy!)
So while the website may grant you a license to download its content as-is for viewing, that doesn't mean they grant you a license to modify it and copy it again.
Yes, this is an utterly idiotic interpretation of copyright law, that effectively breaks the internet and much of what computers do. However, from a particular point of view, it is one that follows logically.
See art 5.1 of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_and_Information_So...
... makes only one exception obligatory: transient or incidental copying as part of a network transmission or legal use ...
Here is one way to do it: they could take a page out of google's Web Environment Integrity proposal and make it illegal to serve any page within Germany unless the integrity is proven. Done. VPNs are problematic? Ban them. Seems very enforceable to me.
Why do you think it is un-enforceable?
The whole Web would simply become incompatible with Germany. So this would be trivial to bypass on a technical level, and unacceptable on a social level. Completely unenforceable indeed.
I don't think this is a good comparison, though. Google cannot force people to use WEI -yet-. The government can.
>The whole Web would simply become incompatible with Germany.
I think the ad-supported web would just LOVE this idea and would become compatible with Germany ASAP.
> So this would be trivial to bypass on a technical level
I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a way for the tech-savvy. But all the trivial ways can very well be blocked.
> unacceptable on a social level
In Germany, you cannot install security cameras in a building unless all the owners agree, on grounds of privacy. But the ISPs keep all of your traffic logs, law firms get these logs, and mass-send cease-and-desist letters using automated systems. This is also not particularly acceptable, but it happens everyday and looks like it is very enforceable.
Lets not be naive and think this is unenforceable on the grounds of being "socially unacceptable".
The idea that a page that's been copied over to us must sacrosanctly be viewed only as intended is absurd. Our speech rights must grant us a right to use tools to view and see things as we might dream, not merely as provided to us.
The war within the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace has really really come to a roiling boil in the past couple years, with all sorts of states trying to declare control over how their populations connect to the global information system. In 95% of cases, I think it makes the state look like an absolute fool.
And very rarely is it being done in accordance with the will of the states people, which is quite chilling!! So called democratic states, with elite capture, doing ill against the free thinking world. These are losers, professional idiots at best, an actively working against humanity for shitty shady hidden motives more likely alas. They are losers, and while this will likely only intensify & make the world tenser and worse and obstructed and jammed up, I have some faith that they will continue to lose their war, that JP Barlow's triumphalism over their shitty ways will keep proving out. These people are idiots, and powerless, and the courts trying to enforce these bad unenforceable dumb laws only illegitemizes the idea of governance. Which I believe strongly in, and want to be a force for good!! But alas, not here.
No comments yet
1. using antivirus software to infringe on copyright of viruses
2. using any bookmarklet
3. scratching out typos in a book you're reading
4. game mods
It doesn't matter that ad block is logically equivalent to bookmarklets. If elected judges determine it's illegal, none of these "nerd" defenses will work. The only defense is to vote in legislators who will pass laws protecting it.
The term of art for this is "legal certainty" and finding the inconsistencies help iron out when something is off.
So yes, it does matter how logically an ad block is equivalent to bookmarklets, because inconsistencies crack and consistency composes.
I get your point that judges can rule, but it's not the end all be all of it.
Judges are not elected, in Germany at least. They are appointed.
The nerd defense of "I will use technology to avoid being caught" does work, and it's the only nerd defense worth pursuing.
"(1) Any person who prepares a criminal offence [Wer eine Straftat nach] pursuant to Section 202a or Section 202b by: 1. passwords or other security codes that enable access to data (Section 202a (2)), or 2. computer programs whose purpose is to commit such an act, manufactures, procures, sells, transfers to another, distributes or otherwise makes available, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with a fine. (2) Section 149 (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis."
Not sure how this is twisted into opening devtools.
"Among other things, criminal charges were filed against the Federal Office for Information Security, as the office allegedly violated the law itself." But were dropped. Sounds like this is a vague law that can lead to a lot of harassing intimidation, followed by cases being dropped.
Apparently 1st world countries have solved all other problems and are splitting hairs looking for stupid things to legislate.
So this applies to published adblockers and things, I guess. You could roll your own, just like you could tear pages out of a book you bought. You could mod a game privately.
If the adblocker-or-whatever is published, it's like publishing a mod to somebody's book. Like a script you point at an ebook that changes it. Is that considered the same as publishing a copy the book with small parts changed? Why?
The article highlights the line in the German copyright act about exclusive rights to "the translation, adaptation, arrangement and other modifications of a computer program". I'm unclear on the scope here. I don't think this applies to people making edits to copyrighted programs in private.
Most companies tolerate them, sometimes encourage them, as long is it is not disruptive. Cracks and cheats however are definitely illegal and companies often take action against people who write or use such tools, usually account bans, but there have been some lawsuits the game company won.
Fundamentally, there is no difference between a cheating tool and a harmless mod, and many mods are baltent copyright infringement using assets without a license. But because mods are generally beneficial to the company, they have no intention to use legal means to stop them.
In the United States, it's legal to modify your machine to interpret the programs running on it other than the way intended by the machine creator and the program author (Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc, 1992). But every nation has its own system of laws and the precedents of one aren't binding on another (and I don't, personally, know if the Galoob v. Nintendo precedent extends to modifying the data on a PC or only protects the far-more-complicated approach of intermediating between PC storage and the CPU).
To my perception, the position of mods in the gaming ecosystem is mostly, for want of a better term, a "gentleman's agreement" or "gentleman's understanding." An awful lot of game devs got started by modding other games, and they feel more than zero empathy for the folks who are basically learning to be the next generation of developers, if not future employees. It's a bit akin to Adobe's position on cracked copies of Photoshop: they reserve the right to sue so companies can't just thumb their nose at their IP rights and use their product with no remuneration, but individual non-corporate users of pirated copies are, at worst, unpaid advertising for the product and, at best, future customers. Some game dev houses are exempt from this "empathy rule;" Nintendo is famously litigious (although even then, they tend to target projects that are, whether the developer knows it or not, in direct competition with Nintendo; AM2R puttered along happily for years until Nintendo decided to release their own Metroid 2 remake).
Is it absurd? Yes. On the other hand, absurdity has never slowed a lawyer...
So they want to change the law so that they can impose their business model on people?
That's absurd.
They may be right; it happens all the time that laws have unintended consequences.
Sounds like stealing by just obstructing my view.
How do I get these filthy hands out of my pocket?
In Hungary this right refers to homeowners. It says that it's illegal to obstruct someone's view in specific ways, for example, to build something that puts an overly large shade in an otherwise previously sunny yard. The newer building becomes legally questionable (even valid building permits), if it causes "unnecessary disturbance" to a homeowner's view.
For something more hopeful regarding ads, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa . I wish this on every place I go.
Does it apply to organic, individual differences in perception?
Maybe when we all get a neural interface we can be calibrated as per some industry standard profile.
People hate ads, they are annoying and provide virtually no value to the end user.
People hate subscriptions, they cost money, are annoying to track, and gravitate towards being impossible to cancel.
Donations are feel good, but no one donates. Conversion rates tend to be <5% of users.
This topic always draws tons of outrage and anger over ads, but no one ever provides a solution besides "Users are entitled to everything on the internet and don't owe anyone anything. If you put content online, you are dumb to expect compensation, but I really love your work!"
[Today.] In the past (1980s, maybe?) I remember getting these fat volumes consisting of only ads (they had everything, from clothing to electronics to LEGO sets) and browsing them with my siblings for hours on end, and fantasizing about getting some of these.
I believe the old style ads, where the website you visit serves locally hosted ads that are in line with the subject matter, not only are not frustrating but actually provide some value as they help you to discover more about things you are already interested in.
This is your point of confusion. The people you're talking to are indifferent to your work. If it's there and someone links it to them, they might read it, but if it's not, that's fine too. They're sure as hell not going to run malware for the privilege though.
It's been a running joke for decades in discussion forums that people don't read the articles. They don't pay for it because it's actually not worth anything to them.
A hobbyist-run internet can still be done today too... no need for mega-corporations to run every website when it costs a few ££ per month to run a web server that could easily handle millions of monthly connections.
Also, it's not my job to validate a scummy business model like advertising: if they (the corporations with ads) want to use them as their primary revenue source that's on them, not me!
Quieter. More focused. Better.
I know Alan Bellows wants to write, but the thing is, he wants to write for money, so that he can write and live. I want to read it, but the other thing is, I don't want to give him any money. I suppose I might do if I had like ten times as much of the stuff, but I don't. The whole situation is enigmatic.
I know that this isn't that simple.. someone who's not employed or has a job where they can mostly do nothing might just "want" to write and be able to, while others might _really really_ want to write but they can't afford it.
Still, as long as there exists someone who wants - and is able to - give me good content with no strings attached, I'd rather consume that than content written for money.
Edit: nevermind, I read the whole thing. The lower court argued as I did, but in revision they apparently found that the DOM tree is code generated by code and thus an expression of the program.
It's really interesting, because the addition of Ads is not wanted nor in any way beneficial to the consumer in this transaction, it just happens to be part of the business model of the seller that he now seeks to protect.
Would the same apply if I buy a printer and modify it to use 3rd party cartridges?
How about a company that could remove the addictive elements of cigarettes?
If you want me to provide additional revenue on top of the transaction, then enter a contract with me. Just because you made it "free" doesn't mean you must be legally allowed to force me into some other consumption...
No. Just because you say that this is how it works does not make it so. That's total rubbish. Yes, advertising works. But it works on hope, that's all. If your hope costs you money, well that's on you.
On payment there is a clear transaction and a contract is made. Both parties agree on their duties for this exchange.
In this case there is no contract, instead the selling party doesn't want a contract (paywall) to reduce friction, but is packaging the product with something the user is supposed to consume, and is now seeking to secure this ROI somehow.
It was a bit confusing when Roseanne and Kim Basinger had the exact same voice.
Torrent to your heart’s content.
I actually browse full time like this; all traffic leaving my house via my ISP is VPN (or some limited exclusions that all use TLS).
Everyone who actually writes software, meanwhile, and understands that code IS data, is collectively facepalming right now. I felt the tremors. Nevermind that almost since its inception, JavaScript has always been an optional component of the web, and my browser very well lets me turn that off. The ability to do so is critical to my security posture. That it also happens to remove distracting visual noise is a nice side bonus.
Firmly, without reservation: if you deliver to me content A, I am under NO OBLIGATION to actually consume content B, merely because you included it in the same package.
We have technology to apply almost unlimited controls on people. The only thing protecting humanity (very feebly right now) is legislation that works at the service of human dignity. But we stand on a precipice, and we are slipping.
The legal view here seems to be that a third party removed content B while delivering content A, and therefore violated the copyright of the provided work.
It's not even framed as redistribution of copyrighted works, it's violating the "exclusive right of modification available under § 69c"
I'm curious how this will play out.
The only content you're interested in is content A, and the supplier chose a business model which requires you to consume content B against your will. Now they sued a third party which is stripping content B as a service to you.
I believe a case needs to be made that content B is not part of the original work provided.
Not easy though...
In practice, I arrive at any given site with nothing more than a crude hyperlink and almost no description of the contents. (Maybe I have a search page summary, often I don't. If I do it's usually rather out of date and incomplete.) I cannot trivially know whether content B is present, or what sort of agreement I may or may not be entering into, until data is actually transferred to my device. By that point, I typically already have content B, before I could possibly make an informed choice about whether I wanted to spend my bandwidth downloading it, what cost it may represent, etc.
Technological solutions already exist here. A provider can choose to lock content behind a paywall, communicating an actual cost, and require that I pay it. Providers can also usually quite trivially detect ad blocking technology, and require that I disable it before delivering the content. (At that point, I am making an informed choice!) A provider doing neither of these things has a very weak case imho. I suppose we'll see if the courts agree.
Maybe a case can be made that the work is not shipped in entirety but needs to be assembled at the consumer...?
>Not easy though...
IANAL, and definitely not eine Rechtsanwalt.
That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes place moments before that ad is displayed.
Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their "expression" being thwarted?
Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here."
If that's actually the case, just having a box where the ad would be that says "this is a space for advertisements" should be enough to satisfy "violations" of the copyright owner's "expression."
Or he steers away from that and states "my program places an Ad here, removing this operation modifies my work", making not the Ad itself part of the work but the process (and outcome?) of an Ad being placed there...
I do hope there's a better legal conclusion the court can take here. If I am legally required to execute arbitrary code on my machine as part of some openly accessible content, I expect a clear contract to be agreed upon...
The complex part here is that they don't sue you as the consumer, or consider the execution/decompilation illegal, but AdBlock as the tool which removes the unwanted content from it.
In that interpretation the only legal way to consume the content is completely unmodified, and the seller built a business-model based on adding something that only he benefits from. Weird scenario...
Ad Reading As a Service.
Court overreach
Germany at it again: now trying to reopen the "adblockers are illegal" debate
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44934571
Is Germany on the brink of banning ad blockers?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44912085
Maybe I would not have a problem with this law if the websites were held responsible for the ads that contain malware.
Then everyone wins except the advertiser / ad network.
https://www.axelspringer.com/de/ax-press-release/sam-altman-...
Large scale copyright theft is fine, individual consumers have to watch ads.
(One piece in particular I'm personally naive on is what German legal precedent says about consumer's right to modify consumed material. In the US, an author's copyright doesn't stop me, the reader of a copy I bought, from highlighting the book up, or crossing out passages I don't like, or tearing pages out, or turning the thing into a delightful booksafe. Naively, I'd believe ABP should be considered in that category of thing: an accessibility tool people use to modify the material they consume to better fit their needs. It doesn't modify the author's original work and it doesn't grant the reader the right to transmit the modified work to someone else, so I'm unclear on how copyright protection should be thought to enter in here, and I bet the text of the ruling clarifies).
Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website.
It's one way, but not necessarily the only way. There should be an option available for the people who do not want to be distracted by advertising.
The problem with that interpretation is that such content that's being "plastered" (that is, unvetted third-party software which wants to execute on my property -- in fact, such ads are generally served from sites other than the one that I visited) over the website aren't actually part of the website.
They are third-party programs unrelated (except via a business relationship between the website proprietor and the ad network -- one that I have no part of, nor have I been consulted WRT said contract) to the website itself.
By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
I refuse to do so. As it is, after all, my property.
If the proprietor of a website doesn't like it, they can block access to the site for those (like myself) who use ad blockers (which some websites already do).
Whether I choose to block ads just because I don't like ads or because I'm trying to protect myself from malicious software distributed through those ad networks -- or both -- is irrelevant. My property is my property and I get to decide what code runs on it. Full stop.
> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting).
Your choice should be "I don't want these ads/this code, no thanks for the content."
And you're right: websites that don't want users with ad blockers can themselves deny access, and if ad blockers explicitly announce themselves so that the website can make that decision, great. That'd be the fair thing, right?
My actual take on this has more nuance than I'd care to fit into a HN comment (of course).
I'm not dogmatically "pro ads". I've worked at ad-supported places and I plan / hope I never do again. I think the current web browsing experience is a nightmare (ads, clickbait, content specifically made longer to fit more ads and/or increase presence). It all sucks. I'm also not absolving all the people publishing sites who would disown third-party ads like "oh well WE don't pick what's displayed" from their responsibilities.
Ultimately, though, ads is how (nearly all) websites get paid, and just as I want to get paid for my work, I think I should pay others for theirs (or at least not benefit from their work if I don't want to pay). I don't try to get around paywalls, I don't try to get around sites that think my browser isn't giving them enough latitude. I just walk away. No one's forcing me to load their ads against my will.
Actually, they're not. Especially in the context of the German court's ruling. As I pointed out here[0]:
That said, your argument is addressing the issue of "private property."I don't disagree that folks should be paid for their work. That said, let's address not just ads, but a significant portion of the 'net that displays ads. That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes?
>> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
>I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting).
What implicit contract? Take the link (https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-... ) associated with the discussion we're both commenting upon.
Let's say (as is true with most links I'm presented with) I'm unaware of the business model, quality and safety of that particular link. Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware? Should I assume that said site is a "good" site that won't hijack my private property and/or attempt to steal my PII and/or my money?
That's a big part of the problem. In most cases, I have absolutely no idea as to what I might find when clicking on a link. Do you believe that I should, in advance of doing so, metaphorically drop my pants, bend over and spread wide? Because that's essentially what browsing the web without an ad blocker is.
As such, I take a defensive posture and protect myself. If the owner of the website doesn't want me to do that, they are welcome to tell me so. At which point I can make up my mind whether or not I believe the content is worth my time, attention and/or money.
Requiring me to give up that time, attention and/or money without any idea as to the quality or safety of the data presented is like walking into a store (of a type and with an inventory that's completely unknown), handing the clerk a credit card and walking out with a sealed bag of who knows what.
Given your attitude, may I assume that you do that sort of thing all the time?
But requiring me in BOHICA[1] fashion to allow random strangers, sight unseen, to run arbitrary code on my private property to enrich themselves -- likely at my expense -- without even a by-your-leave seems more like a scam than a business model.
I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. You do you and visit every site without any script or ad blocking and with the naive hope that every site you visit is run by honest, decent human beings. Good luck with that. You're gonna need it.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44955239
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms#B...
It is literally what you have to pay for what you want to consume.