This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.

This would also ban Dark Mode features and extensions.

I can literally open up the development console and manually click an ad, and delete it. Am I now hacking and sabotaging a protected program?

WTF is this for nonsense, what mental gymnastics....?

Time to outright disable Javascript in my browsers and just deal with the broken sites and generally less useful web.

This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.

This is ridiculous... the in-memory structures are highly browser dependent, the browser is the one controlling how the DOM is represented in memory.. it would imply that opening the website AT ALL in a different version of the exact specific one they target or with a different set of specific features/settings would also be a violation, since the memory structure would likely be different too.

At that point, they might as well just ask for their website to not be visited at all.

Black mirror 15 Million Merits

And this....

...in a nutshell is US patent US8246454B2. Sony owns the rights since 2009 but has not implemented it. When the permit expires in 2030, it will basically be open for other companies to use

I wonder why all these totally unrelated things in the world are going to shit? Maybe theres a common thread

"The EU recognizes the right of users to choose what content they receive, including the ability to block unwanted advertising."

what happened to our privacy rights? Are they being dismantled in order for giant tech companies to take a foothold in controlling the masses? I mean that's what we get when we elect a self-proclaimed "transatlantist" chancellor. Fuck Merz and his blackrock cronies

The case stems from online media company Axel Springer’s lawsuit against Eyeo - the maker of the popular Adblock Plus browser extension.

Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright violation.

FYI, Axel Springer is a company and owns Business Insider (since 2015), Politico, and Politico Europe (since 2021). They suck.

Gudrun Kruip, a scholar associated with the Stiftung Bundespräsident-Theodor-Heuss-Haus, has claimed that Axel Springer SE, along with its subsidiaries, exhibits a pro-American stance, often omitting criticism of US foreign policy.[58] This observation is then backed by allegations made by two former CIA officers in an interview with The Nation, claiming that Axel Springer received $7 million from the CIA.[59] The purpose of this funding, they allege, was to influence the publisher to align its editorial content with American geopolitical interests.[59]

As of 2001, the Axel Springer SE names "solidarity with the libertarian values of the United States of America" as one of its core principles on its website.[60] This explicit stance has led to critiques from scholars and independent observers regarding the company's perceived alignment with American interests.[58][61][62][63][64] Furthermore, an article in Foreign Policy has critiqued Axel Springer SE for a history of compromising journalistic ethics to support right-wing causes, implying a longstanding pattern of bias in its publications.[65]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE#Criticism

I can't understand this logic.

Assume as stated that a website is a copyrighted and protected. Sure, that means I can't redistribute it to others without permission or a license. But I can't see how me locally, privately modifying the site would be against the law. Should Crayola be sued because their crayons can be used to modify a copyrighted art piece? Is it illegal for me to watch a movie with a blue-light filter on because it modifies how the content is displayed?

Edit: After further thought, a stronger argument would be that it's illegal (in some places) to bypass DRM protections. That's because if I break DRM of some media (say, of a rented DVD) so that I can keep it forever, that would technically be illegal even if I never shared it with anybody else. So if a site tries to break ad blockers but an ad blocker works around that, that would be "breaking" DRM, therefore illegal. But I still find that to be an lacking argument.

If Germany bans ad blockers and a German citizen or company becomes victim to a malicious advertisement, do they have a case against the German government or by extension Axel Springer?

It's my computer.

Fuck you.

Internet advertising, spreading malware since the 90s. Barely do anything to hold digital advertisement networks accountable for what they distribute, not even copyright/fraudulent website cloning for servicing malware, but always ready to crack down on people trying to browse the internet more securely and always ready to make more money for the rich

Is it illegal for me to fast forward the previews at the beginning of my VHS too? WTF?

yes, beacon of democracy for europe right there.

Europe went from leader of internet freedom to ~~Stasi police~~ Gestapo in a few months.

Guess there's a top down policy to implement Fascism across Europe soon, judging by the speed at which Europe is passing dracnonic internet control.

If that lawsuit is successful then I’ll be next in line suing security camera companies for disrupting my breaking and entering business.

What better way to let the people know whose interests the regime really represents.

You WILL finance the pizza

You WILL watch an ad every minute