Adblocking Does Not Constitute Copyright Infringement, Court Rules | Hacker News Reader

Adblocking Does Not Constitute Copyright Infringement, Court Rules

torrentfreak.com

64 pointsskarz14 comments

Bottom line: You own your computer and you pay for your communication bandwidth and what is allowed to make use of it is entirely your decision.

Advertisers don't own your computer desktop and have no real right to dictate what happens on it --- much to their chagrin.

The most amazing part is that it was even necessary for a court to make this ruling. Anything less would have given advertisers partial ownership rights to your attention span.

A lot of times, the obvious _must_ be stated or else companies do whatever they want because "it's not written anywhere that I can't".

Yes but ... this was not simply about them doing whatever *they* want.

This was about them legally forcing others to also do what *they* want --- with private hardware and software and infrastructure that *they* have no logical, legal, moral or ethical claim to.

The sheer arrogance required to even ask for a court ruling is kinda astounding. The ad industry needs to take a step back and reexamine their game plan. All this tact will do is build more incentive and determination to block them.

Given that advertising is lying, it's not surprising that the ad industry would ask for such unethical license.

I think it was predictable that Google would turn to the dark side based on their advertising revenue source.

Don't be evil

This was really a warning. The fact they tried to sell this foretold exactly what was on their mind and where they were headed.

> Advertisers don't own your computer desktop and have no real right to dictate what happens on it --- much to their chagrin.

Windows 10/11 would like a word.

Honestly I think they're going to fight this again because the user's computer is just too valuable to not be able to leverage. We're seeing everything software move toward "as a service" pricing, and not ownership.

This is a concern:

> In its lawsuit, Axel Springer cited a 2012 court ruling which found that software for Sony’s Playstation Portable console that changed code in memory to facilitate cheating was infringing. In that case the court found that the temporary modification of the software constituted a revision of the software, something which requires permission from rightsholders.

How can it be against copyright the modify my personal copy of a game? If I cut out the all of the faces of an actor on a VHS tape and replace it with mine, is that copyright infringement? It's my copy.

The principle that shrinkwrap licenses are based on is that you're entering into a contract by agreeing. Part of that contract is a grant to you: that you're permitted to have a copy of the work. Then there are various arbitrary clauses to restrict your behavior with respect to that copy. If you break those clauses the agreement is null and void. All of it, including the part that grants you permission to have the copy. So that is then what you're violating: since you're doing things the game vendor does not like, you're no longer an authorized user, and so you have retroactively violated copyright by having a copy of the game.

The contract idea is sound, but it the legitimacy of those restrictions and the bundling of the behavioral clauses with copyright should only be deemed to be valid if a paper document was signed: either with all parties present, or else notarized.

These kinds of restrictions should not be held valid if they are imposed against users who can download the game without signing any actual agreement.

At best, a copyright-based license agreement attached to something that is downloadable by the general public should only be able to impose copyright-based restrictions, like whether redistribution is permitted and in what forms.

I have very little knowledge of how legal systems work.

Can someone explain what happens when a company as large as this decides to file such a law suit?

Is it such low costs that you might as well just argue whatever you want and see what happens? Or are there internal teams counter arguing to check validity of such law suit?

> Is it such low costs that you might as well just argue whatever you want and see what happens?

I guess they do the numbers, see potential loss vs potential gain and place their bets.

Adblocking hyper-confirms to copyright: you don't download the ad, therefore you're not copying, using or redistributing it.

Once again, Amazon is way ahead of the pack here.

They already have the answer for the ad industry --- specially developed low cost hardware that forces ads to the purchaser. Aka, the Fire tablet --- cheap little ad spewing machines.

Unless government steps in and breaks them up, Amazon will eventually own most of retail commerce.

To give some context: The court Hamburg is the equvalent of filing your claims in the Eastern District of Texas.

It's quite remarkeable that they didn't rule that adblocking is copyright infringement...

Good to hear, what I find more inserting was the case the plaintiff referenced. The fact a court ruled modifying code in memory is copyright infringement is sad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com