Comment by rickdeckard | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rickdeckard | Hacker News Reader

> 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...

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.

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.

>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.

§69 is specifically about computer programs, so it doesn't apply to printer cartridges or cigarettes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com