Who's trying to break the internet today?

[Dekafox]

Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal

A recent ruling from Germany's Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has revived a legal battle over whether browser-based ad blockers infringe copyright, raising fears about a potential ban of the tools in the country.

www.bleepingcomputer.com

 

[NovaSaber]

Why can't they regulate the ads to make them not be so bad that people feel the need for ad blockers?

 

[CoffeeHorse]

They don't care. They want you to see the ads.

I unsubscribed from my newspaper many years ago. They still toss the bag of ads in my yard. I'm not a subscriber. I cost them nothing, and I receive zero content. Doesn't matter. They just want me to see the ads.

 

[wonko the sane?]

If ad blockers are outlawed, only outlaws will have ad blockers.

 

[Pocket]

Germany has always been one of the worst countries when it comes to copyright. Stuff on YouTube that just gets extra commercials slapped on it gets outright blocked over there. I think their expiration limits are longer than ours too.

 

[Ceir]

...how does blocking ads infringe on copyright of all things?

 

[abates]

Their argument is that a webpage's appearance is covered by copyright, and by using a browser extension to alter the appearance of the website, you are producing an unlawful reproduction.

 

[NovaSaber]

How does that work for pages whose exact appearance is a mix of "user created" (copyrighted by the users, not the site) and "algorithmically generated" (not copyrightable)?

I'm not entirely sure "a webpage's layout" is copyrightable either, but even if it is, the only way an ad is ever actually part of that is when the ads are in fixed locations on the layout.

And then there's the fact that the modified version the browser "makes" is only ever seen by the person using that computer.
So this argument against ad blockers is like saying that writing fanfic is illegal, even you don't even post it anywhere.

If they want people to see the ads, they need to get rid of every ad that has any capacity to put things on your computer in any way other than displaying the ad on your screen. Unwanted trackers should be illegal, and ads that include malware should lead to jail time for the offenders.
Autoplaying video ads on non-video pages should also be banned.
Along with whatever is going on with Wikia's current layout.

 

[wonko the sane?]

Their argument is that a webpage's appearance is covered by copyright, and by using a browser extension to alter the appearance of the website, you are producing an unlawful reproduction.

Whoever wrote that law must have made a FORTUNE in political donations.

 

[Pocket]

If they want people to see the ads, they need to get rid of every ad that has any capacity to put things on your computer in any way other than displaying the ad on your screen. Unwanted trackers should be illegal, and ads that include malware should lead to jail time for the offenders.

You bring up a good point: Is blocking the malicious code contained in ads tantamount to blocking the whole ad, as per this ruling? And if not, what's the threshold? Most browsers already block certain tracking cookies automatically, without even asking. They try to block that one malicious script that causes the parent page to suddenly redirect to malware sites, but somehow the code for that keeps getting regressions. I've seen sites suddenly get covered in ads they never signed up for and definitely aren't getting paid for because there's malicious code inside the ads they're serving that generates more of them.

Honestly, I kind of want to see this thing get passed, and then some major browser keep blocking that crap just to see what would happen. At the bare minimum anyone who wanted to challenge them would have to expose themselves as being responsible for that sort of thing, and that would paint a target on their heads second only in size to healthcare CEOs. But that won't ever happen. You don't get to be the head of a tech company or even a major open source project by being the kind of person who'd openly defy the law (unless it's a law that stops you from dicking your customers or workers over to make more money).

 

[Anonymous X]

Stop children using VPNs to watch porn, ministers told

The children's commissioner for England tells the BBC virtual private networks are a "loophole that needs closing.

www.bbc.co.uk

The children’s commissioner for England has called for the UK government to require age verification on VPNs, to stop kids using VPNs to get round age verification requirements. I would laugh, but, FFS.

 

[Tuxedo Prime]

Stop children using VPNs to watch porn, ministers told

The children's commissioner for England tells the BBC virtual private networks are a "loophole that needs closing.

www.bbc.co.uk

The children’s commissioner for England has called for the UK government to require age verification on VPNs, to stop kids using VPNs to get round age verification requirements. I would laugh, but, FFS.

Well, not than any developed country can be smug about what its populace does or doesn't know about technology these days, but I do recall -- one of the benefits of having a fixed idea, I guess -- that there was a bit of a panic in the UK over DDLC back when it first came out, not only for the content -- which involves self-harm, teen suicide and a Reality Warping AI -- but also the erroneous belief that the game could send SMS messages. Which it can't. Even the BSOD in the Windows edition was a clever simulation, as the game does not affect the OS core (however Monika might wish otherwise....).