177

German court overturns previous ruling that ad blocking isn't piracy (torrentfreak.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by sad_detective_man@leminal.space to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

sorry for butchering the article title, I've edited my post to try and reflect the intention of article

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 74 points 1 day ago

Let's take a deep breath and consider what's happened. The Federal Court of Justice has sent the case back to the lower court. They have not ruled on anything. They have not said ad blocking is piracy. They have essentially said: lower court, you had 25 boxes to tick but you only ticked 24 in your ruling. Go back and do one that ticks all of them.

It's entirely possible that the lower court will change its ruling based on the intricacies of German copyright law, which is shit. But it's not very likely if you ask me. Regardless, whoever loses will appeal it again. This rodeo is far from over. And when it's eventually over the technology will have moved on, with any luck the law along with it, and the only beneficiaries will have been the lawyers.

So the headline should read more like "German court does not rule out that ad blocking could be a copyright infringement."

The argument that Axel Springer is just doing it for their love of democracy is also comical. Media pluralism is important, I agree with them that far, but they are stuck in an outdated mindset. They launched a silly tabloid Fox News wannabe TV channel and failed. They are trying to force eyeballs on their content like you are at a news agent. Meanwhile, news is happening on TikTok and so-called AI is going to reduce their page views to dust. By the time we get a final ruling they will have pivoted strategy 10 times to keep the c-suite in caviar while the established media business that made them successful is rotting away under their assess.

[-] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 6 points 1 day ago

isn't overturning a previous ruling kind of clear intention? what other purposes does this have?

[-] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 8 points 22 hours ago

To have a proper justice system.

As the main comment explained: this is not saying "you got the wrong result", this is saying " the way you reached that result is not the proper way for our justice system".

So they are just saying that the lower court didn't do it's due diligence and needs to look again at the case, this time considering the parts they missed the first time.

It is not uncommon in Germany that cases like this end in the same result

To try and explain it in an easier to understand way:

Person X murders Person Y

Court A says "Guilty, because you suck"

Court Higher B says: "Suckiness is not a proper judicial term, do the whole thing again"

Court A says "guilty, because here is the witness testimony, your finger prints on the murder weapon and the video footage of you killing person Y".

Same result as before, but this time in a proper manner fitting a proper judicial system.

[-] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 12 points 1 day ago

No. This is how the legal system works. When you appeal to a higher court, they can make a call themselves when massive mistakes were made at the lower level or they can say the lower court overlooked something and then make them redo their work. It's a convenient choice for the higher judges not to have to do more work themselves. But it's part of the process.

[-] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 16 points 1 day ago

Is returning it to a lower court overturning a ruling?

This sounds more like as described - "redo it". Overturning would be this court literally "over turning" and saying adblock is piracy.

[-] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes. The article only links to it in German but "Werbeblocker IV / Ad Blocker IV" on July 31 was the overturning case.

Axel previously tried twice in 2018 and 2023 and failed. Now that it is overturned, he is going to the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg to get a new ruling.

However I don't speak German or live in Germany, this is my understanding of this article and these court cases.

[-] Coopr8@kbin.earth 1 points 1 day ago

Here's a thing about LLMs, they will effectively make laws like this meaningless. Law comes in to enforce against a company building a program to block ads, extension goes off market. Someone asks their LLM "create an extension function referencing the same data set for my browser that performs the same function" boom new extension with no central point of distribution. Share the prompt on a forum, now everyone has a custom ad blocker. Or not so far down the road, LLM is directly built into the browser, no extension needed just prompt "do not display known advertisements on pages I request before loading, but perform background activity which gives feedback to the site that ads have loaded" boom done.

In a way, local LLMs are like distributed applications, they make enforcement against specific program functions pretty much impossible.