A friend raised what I consider a very valid point, that ad blockers are assistive technology for people with ADHD. They prevent the web from being an unusable mess of shiny distraction. And as such, in America, blocking ad blockers is a violation of the ADA.
I’m being completely serious here and so is he. I can barely use the web without ad blockers. They make it possible for me to participate in online life. Remove them and you largely remove me. An attack on ad blockers is a direct attack on even the slightly neurodivergent, and should be treated as such.
limagnolia · 30m ago
While I am a huge fan of ad blockers, and as some one with ADHD I am very sympathetic to the argument, I suspect that your friend is not a lawyer, and/or is not very familiar with the limitations of the ADA.
kstrauser · 27m ago
He is not, nor am I, but I don’t see a reason you and I shouldn’t get the same legal protections as other groups. What about blind people who pipe the output of a screen through text-to-speech? Or people with epilepsy who can’t use flashy screens? Or someone who needs to enlarge print or change its contrast? There are plenty of medical reasons to need to alter their browser presentations.
brookst · 12m ago
IANAL, but the critical thing to know is that the ADA doesn’t mean that every assistive technology is mandated / required. Wheelchair users would benefit from dedicated elevators where their face is not butt-level with strangers in tight spaces; the ADA doesn’t mean not mandate this accommodation.
kstrauser · 8m ago
Is there an alternative technology that allows people to use websites without flashing ads?
limagnolia · 16m ago
I agree with this in general, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is current law. Now, I will also say I am not a lawyer, and I can't say for certain its not, but having dealt with ADA claims and done a fair amount of research into it, I know that it is often a very misunderstood law. I believe that fighting to protect assistive technologies at all levels is a worthy fight.
Vinnl · 32m ago
Yeah, that's also the main warning from the blog: the reasoning here is that adjusting how the website code executes on your computer is copyright infringement. The effects of that would go way beyond just adblockers.
kstrauser · 22m ago
I strongly agree with that point, too. The notion that you can legally force me to run a bit of arbitrary code you transmit to me is absolutely bonkers.
davorak · 11m ago
> adjusting how the website code executes on your computer is copyright infringement.
I would be interested in how German law works to make this so, IANAL but pretty sure USA copy right law does not work that way. Modification for personal use is normally going to be 100% acceptable under USA copyright law. The DMCA Anti-Circumvention is one exception I know to this but it was and is a big deal for being an exception.
anonymousab · 3m ago
One of the things that came out of several Blizzard anticheat/Warden lawsuits back in the day is that, technically, the act of running an executable is copyright infringement, because the data is being copied from disk into memory, into registers and into caches.
Running any software that then does anything with the same memory space (cheating software or, say, antivirus) is another, separate instance of copyright infringement on top of that.
anthk · 10m ago
So, running old browsers with no JS support it's illegal too? OTOH, there's
even gopher://taz.de in Germany.
ItsBob · 39m ago
Ok, I'll bite... what if an "ad" on a website is a bit of javascript that mines bitcoins using my GPU? Does this mean I have to let it do this?
What if it does it while showing me an ad for something at the same time?
How does running a bit of software on my computer concern anyone other than me?
I am not a lawyer and I haven't read the court's rulings but this seems assinine!
mortenjorck · 1h ago
> We sincerely hope that Germany does not become the second jurisdiction (after China) to ban ad blockers.
Given the other restrictions on internet use in China, it should have come as no surprise, but I had no idea this was the law of the land there.
guerrilla · 48m ago
Is it? Can we can confirmation?
Meneth · 26m ago
Mozilla cites what appears to be an auto-translated abstract of a chinese science paper:
"China takes a different approach to protect the ad-based business model under unfair competition law and bans ad blocking software directly by regulation. The Chinese courts held that providing ad blocking software is anti-competitive under a vague general principle of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law."
Vinnl · 31m ago
In the original blog, "after China" is a link.
mediumsmart · 3m ago
0.0.0.0 is a real adblocker. The whole of Germany can fit in there if need be.
Full disclosure: I am German.
fabian2k · 39m ago
I can't judge the legal aspects. But a significant point here is that Adblock Plus allows you do pay them to get preferential treatment for your ads.
I don't know how much this part affects the legal issues here, but for me that is quite a different situation than a pure ad blocker. There is a coercive element here, if your ad blocker is used widely enough and you take money for preferential treatment.
9dev · 39m ago
Sparing you both the reading time and the outrage: No, it is not.
Vinnl · 30m ago
Actual answer from the blog post (tl;dr: maybe):
> The full impact of this latest development is still unclear. The BGH will issue a more detailed written ruling explaining its decision. Meanwhile, the case has now returned to the lower court for additional fact-finding. It could be a couple more years until we have a clear answer. We hope that the courts ultimately reach the same sensible conclusion and allow users to install ad blockers.
VonTum · 51m ago
Who could possibly be in favor of this? Like sure industry lobbying is strong but could any politician really argue they're acting in the interest of their constituents with this?
badestrand · 23m ago
Traditional news media and print media are really strong in Germany (and for example Spain).
They also made laws happen that limit how Google can link to news sites to prevent Google News from stealing readers.
And they tried to make Google pay each time a user clicks a link that leads to a German news site.
Also there are surcharges on printers (around $50 or so per piece), laptops etc because you might copy copyright-protected texts with it.
And the German online news websites know they lose a lot of money to adblockers so of course they want to ban them.
anthk · 11m ago
And yet, Dillo, Lynx, Links, and services like gemi://gemi.dev work perfectly fine.
Good luck banning Unix config files. My machine, my rules.
SpaceManNabs · 20m ago
anti free speech stuff like this is why i only bring burner phones into europe.
anthk · 9m ago
That's just Germany. Europe is not a country.
zaik · 46m ago
There is no politician that does. It's about the interpretation of existing copyright law.
dkiebd · 44m ago
It’s in the interest of the media which is what allows those politicians to stay in power.
Analemma_ · 46m ago
European countries have been pretty consistent that they want to protect their publishers, no matter the downstream consequences. Banning ad blockers wouldn't be very different from e.g. forcing Google to pay link taxes, it's just directed at end users instead of Google. So I'd say a lot of people who want to protect European publishers are probably in favor of this.
1a527dd5 · 38m ago
My question is how do you enforce anything like this? Cookie banners, the accessibility ruling, and now this.
We've had to adhere to the rulings at work; but when I ask the lawyers; "how do you enforce this?" they say as long as you make a best effort you are fine.
Wasted effort.
bilgi42 · 33m ago
they may ban particular extensions in regions, it should be doable for majority of public. it wouldn't be a complete ban, they can't really do that, but roadblocks will be enough to deter people
raverbashing · 27m ago
You don't but good luck explaining to the Luddite boomers there
CalRobert · 20m ago
Does this make curl illegal? Wget?
andy99 · 25m ago
Much like the old "piracy" nonsense, I wonder if banning ad blockers would be a net gain for advertisers (if it was possible). Personally I wouldn't go to a site that had any remotely intrusive advertising, even if I wanted to I get too distracted to read the real content.
Less views means fewer network effects - for a small example, fewer people posting and discussing on sites like HN or reddit. And therefore less pull in of those unfortunate people who don't block ads, and less views overall.
I don't know if it actually works out that way, but I do think forcing people to accept the full bore of your annoying site or not use it at all is a double edged sword.
anthk · 14m ago
Will they ban Dillo too?
close04 · 49m ago
If the user is legally obligated to allow the ad on their device then the site owner must be legally accountable for what the ad does, for example if it's malware. No passing this on to the ad-network. Their code, their copyright, their malware distribution.
nothrabannosir · 44m ago
Surprised to see this downvoted; I hadn’t even thought of it but it actually seems like an eminently reasonable take. The only logical conclusion, even. How could you argue otherwise?
Would love to hear a down voter’s dissent because I’m not seeing it.
layer8 · 31m ago
It was probably downvoted because it is orthogonal to the issue. The website is (or should be) responsible for malware regardless of whether you are allowed to block it or not.
sneak · 1h ago
Under a strict reading of copyright law, this actually makes sense.
The problem is that the fundamental concept of IP is nonsensical and insane. When applied rationally, it will of course result in wacky results like this.
drunner · 47m ago
How does it make sense? If I buy a book I'm entitled to rip out pages and black marker words. What's the difference to removing text or images of my choice while viewing a website?
sneak · 5m ago
It’s an unauthorized modification (and production of a derivative work) of a copyrighted work.
trenchpilgrim · 4m ago
Which is perfectly legal to make under existing law.
NoMoreNicksLeft · 42m ago
Depends on what the license says in the first page of the book. It may actually disallow you ripping out pages. You don't own the book, you merely paid for a limited license to read it per the instructions provided in the license agreement. Anything else would be immoral.
3036e4 · 36m ago
No, that is not how copyright works, at least not in this country, but probably not in many countries. You buy a book, not a license. Copyright luckily isn't an unlimited right to dictate exactly how a work is used.
Ebooks sadly are different. I only buy DRM-free ebooks that grant me rights similar to what always exists for printed books, but that sadly limits what ebooks I can buy quite significantly.
kstrauser · 15m ago
You cannot coerce me into believing that buying an ebook is any different than buying a physical copy. Either way I’m exchanging money for the right to possess a copy of it. Legal fictions be damned, if I pay for it, I own it, and can do whatever I want with it short of distributing copies of it to others.
3036e4 · 4m ago
It's because they managed to get DRM-circumvention into copyright laws in most countries, so they just have to put some kind of DRM in the ebook and then they can claim that any attempt to use the ebook outside of the official software is DRM-circumvention and therefore illegal, even if you are not necessarily infringing on any copyright per se.
trenchpilgrim · 39m ago
This is not true - you have received a property right to the copy of the content and can legally alter or destroy it. A license in the book cannot override your property right.
You may encounter issues if you attempt to distribute the altered copy, but that's not at issue here.
3036e4 · 20m ago
You can even cut out parts of the text to re-sell, which is exactly what press clipping services did for newspapers. No copies were made, so no copyright infringement (that simple logic was fine until someone managed to get DRM-circumvention added to copyright laws).
"The first press clipping agency in London was established in 1852 ... Early clipping services employed women to scan periodicals for mentions of specific names or terms. The marked periodicals were then cut out by men and pasted to dated slips. Women would then sort those slips and clippings to be sent to the services' clients".
No, you absolutely own the book, but you have a licence for the information in it.
ballenf · 37m ago
Wouldn't the first sale doctrine override such terms in most cases?
syntaxbush · 46m ago
Applying this "strict reading" would that mean the majority of chrome extensions are violating copyright. They would not be allowed to modify the DOM to translate web pages, to add price history, check for coupons, etc. as they all modify the original creator's "program"?
trenchpilgrim · 44m ago
If I am given a free magazine with ads in it, I can rip out the ads and just read the articles, or sharpie my own writing in the pages. What makes a website different?
Spivak · 56m ago
Betteridge's Law, they aren't on the brink of banning ad blockers; German courts are just going to hear the case again. There's no indication they intend to rule differently, only that the original decision needs more
information.
afarah1 · 54m ago
... how would it be enforced?
kvdveer · 50m ago
The same way laws against online piracy are enforced: attack the infrastructure. AdBlock Plus is being attacked right now. If distributing this software is made illegal, all blockers will vanish from the addon stores, and only very tech savvy users will have palatable Internet.
lxgr · 46m ago
Your comment just made me realize how easy it would actually be for a court to implement such a ban these days: They could simply require Apple to not ship a content blocking API anymore in their jurisdiction. Thanks to Apple's ban of third-party browsers, that would be enough.
On Android, the situation is slightly better, since browsers can be sideloaded, but ad blockers would quickly become a niche phenomenon.
3036e4 · 11m ago
Easy to forget, but some of us still browse the web on laptops and desktop computers where users still have slightly more choice when it comes to what software to use. For now. Of course eventually Google or someone else will manage to spread something like Web Environment Integrity Checks, and then things will become a lot messier.
I’m being completely serious here and so is he. I can barely use the web without ad blockers. They make it possible for me to participate in online life. Remove them and you largely remove me. An attack on ad blockers is a direct attack on even the slightly neurodivergent, and should be treated as such.
I would be interested in how German law works to make this so, IANAL but pretty sure USA copy right law does not work that way. Modification for personal use is normally going to be 100% acceptable under USA copyright law. The DMCA Anti-Circumvention is one exception I know to this but it was and is a big deal for being an exception.
Running any software that then does anything with the same memory space (cheating software or, say, antivirus) is another, separate instance of copyright infringement on top of that.
What if it does it while showing me an ad for something at the same time?
How does running a bit of software on my computer concern anyone other than me?
I am not a lawyer and I haven't read the court's rulings but this seems assinine!
Given the other restrictions on internet use in China, it should have come as no surprise, but I had no idea this was the law of the land there.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&h...
"China takes a different approach to protect the ad-based business model under unfair competition law and bans ad blocking software directly by regulation. The Chinese courts held that providing ad blocking software is anti-competitive under a vague general principle of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law."
Full disclosure: I am German.
I don't know how much this part affects the legal issues here, but for me that is quite a different situation than a pure ad blocker. There is a coercive element here, if your ad blocker is used widely enough and you take money for preferential treatment.
> The full impact of this latest development is still unclear. The BGH will issue a more detailed written ruling explaining its decision. Meanwhile, the case has now returned to the lower court for additional fact-finding. It could be a couple more years until we have a clear answer. We hope that the courts ultimately reach the same sensible conclusion and allow users to install ad blockers.
They also made laws happen that limit how Google can link to news sites to prevent Google News from stealing readers.
And they tried to make Google pay each time a user clicks a link that leads to a German news site.
Also there are surcharges on printers (around $50 or so per piece), laptops etc because you might copy copyright-protected texts with it.
And the German online news websites know they lose a lot of money to adblockers so of course they want to ban them.
The same with hosts files: https://github.com/stevenblack/hosts
Good luck banning Unix config files. My machine, my rules.
We've had to adhere to the rulings at work; but when I ask the lawyers; "how do you enforce this?" they say as long as you make a best effort you are fine.
Wasted effort.
Less views means fewer network effects - for a small example, fewer people posting and discussing on sites like HN or reddit. And therefore less pull in of those unfortunate people who don't block ads, and less views overall.
I don't know if it actually works out that way, but I do think forcing people to accept the full bore of your annoying site or not use it at all is a double edged sword.
Would love to hear a down voter’s dissent because I’m not seeing it.
The problem is that the fundamental concept of IP is nonsensical and insane. When applied rationally, it will of course result in wacky results like this.
Ebooks sadly are different. I only buy DRM-free ebooks that grant me rights similar to what always exists for printed books, but that sadly limits what ebooks I can buy quite significantly.
You may encounter issues if you attempt to distribute the altered copy, but that's not at issue here.
"The first press clipping agency in London was established in 1852 ... Early clipping services employed women to scan periodicals for mentions of specific names or terms. The marked periodicals were then cut out by men and pasted to dated slips. Women would then sort those slips and clippings to be sent to the services' clients".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_monitoring_service
On Android, the situation is slightly better, since browsers can be sideloaded, but ad blockers would quickly become a niche phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity