https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221?=8324278624
It's gone now. I wonder if that's a policy choice.
Edit: It just moved to https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2022/PSA221221
The FBI recommends individuals take the following precautions...
Use an ad blocking extension when performing internet searches. Most internet browsers allow a user to add extensions, including extensions that block advertisements. These ad blockers can be turned on and off within a browser to permit advertisements on certain websites while blocking advertisements on others.Meanwhile others at the same org may have different feelings based on what they're tasked to do.
It's just a human organization thing.
------
I once worked at a company where HR was tasked with helping employees de-stress / relax. One group organized free lunches and even an outing or two. They were sometimes naive, but seemed like sincere and good faith efforts.
Later the company was reviewing some kind of expenditures and for whatever reason a separate group in HR became involved. They noticed that some of our 24/7 tech support staff didn't attend some of these lunches or outings. Of course they didn't all the events occurred during the work day and someone had to be on the phones and others worked weekends or nights or etc.
This other HR wanted it noted on their performance review as a negative that they didn't participate in HR de-stressing events ... pure madness (thankfully it didn't happen).
Two different groups, same org, conflicting choices.
Germany is jailing people for memes, raiding homes over jokes, and fining pensioners for calling politicians idiots. The government calls it “fighting hate.”
Germany's going too far in the opposite direction now, though. I'm actually okay with the rule against insulting people as long as everyone knows that's the rule (note that you can't insult anyone, not just politicians) since it doesn't affect quality discourse yet it keeps low-quality discourse (the kind that dragged the USA into the mud) down. The way they're applying it to discussion about Israel is currently a problem. That's a separate law from the insult one. They're claiming that any criticism of Israel's actions is antisemitic hate speech, which is of course illegal.
Note that supporting the principle doesn't mean I support the implementation. If it were up to me it would be only a slap on the wrist fine except in very severe cases (like organizing a hate protest) and I don't know what level of checks and balances would be enough to ensure the classification of "hate" doesn't devolve into what it has become.
Criticism of the government is absolutely vital. It's the very reason why free speech is so important. And that seems to be what the article is addressing.
Using "free speech" to silence and persecute minorities, and create a hostile atmosphere for them, is the opposite of free speech, abusing the space it was granted by free speech, and inevitably leads to serious restrictions on free speech, as we're currently seeing in the US.
These two things are not the same.
One major plot hole: Despite the law ostensibly applying equally to everyone, there is zero chance that Robert Habeck would ever get in trouble for saying "Martijn Vos is a moron." That's because he's an Important Person and you're not.
Germany *is* completely totalitarian on speech right now, but only on the issue of Israel/Palestine.
The difference is that Hacker News is a website and you can visit another to say rude things if you want with ease, not a country with subjects/citizens.
But using memes with real Nazi for this, in Germany, is too much. And they got a fine, not a prison term. Fair enough.
A direct analogy here would seem to be a newspaper publisher arguing that if a reader chooses to fold up the newspaper into an origami duck, then the publisher's copyright has been infringed.
No, that type of manipulation isn't the legal argument Axel Springer is trying to use. It has nothing to do with re-using newspapers/books as birdcage liner, or fireplace kindling, etc.
Instead, Axel is focusing on the manipulation of the text/bytes itself (i.e. the HTML rewrite). A better direct analogy would be the lawsuits against devices deleting ads or muting "bad words" from tv broadcasts and movies. E.g.: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06/child-safe-viewing-a
That's the legal angle they used to pressure ReplayTV to remove the automatic Commercial Skip feature from their DVR.
And yes, sometimes us nerds really want to slippery-slope those lawsuits into wild scenarios such as ... "But doesn't that also mean that when I shut my eyes at a tv commercial during a baseball game or go the bathroom during an ad it's a copyright violation?!?" .... No, the courts don't see it as the same thing.
Probably the more convincing analogy to justify ruling against Axel is the more prosaic "Reader Mode" in browsers that analyze HTML and rewrite it. Is Apple Safari Reader Mode a "copyright violation" ?!? I hope not.
I also wonder how it's made distinct from an addon that does something like block malware on a website. Surely that must be modifying copyrighted data too? Are some modifications allowed, I guess? Surely if something like an accessibility addon modifies the data, that's acceptable, right?
besides, the ads are inserted from another host, so which bytes are we talking about?
If not, then it's fine.
That only shows how idiotically abusive are protections awarded to proprietary software.
Modern websites are software. That's a fact. According to the rules, Axel Springer is right. It's just that we don't want them to be right because applying the rules here leads to bothersome outcome.
I hope Germany rules according to the letter of the law and bans browser extensions that modify web applications. Because only suffering can make law change to something more reasonable. Lenient rulings protect bad laws.
Edit: a sibling comment points out that it's about editing the text, not folding the paper, but I still have the same questions: is it supposed to be a copyright violation (even if too small to sue over) if you cut and paste with a newspaper you bought, in private? And is a tool with the specific purpose to help you do this - "newspaper scissors" - also a copyright violation?
As much as I'm pro ad blockers, this seems like a reasonable reading of the law. An interesting way to convince yourself of this is to find a solid line that you could draw based purely on a set of principals grounded by some legal standard about what the difference between a desktop computer program, a downloadable JavaScript program, CSS and HTML really is in terms of how they cause a computer to act on the information.
That said, I think you could fairly reasonably find that section 69e of the copyright act (english translation [1]) applies to adblock software, though I'd imagine the plaintiff would probably argue that the use of an adblock software interferes with their interests.
---
Section 69e Decompilation
(1) The rightholder’s consent is not required where reproduction of the code or translation of its form within the meaning of section 69c nos. 1 and 2 is indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, provided that the following conditions are met:
1. the acts are performed by the licensee or by another person authorised to use a copy of a program or on their behalf by a person empowered to do so;
2. the information necessary to achieve interoperability has not previously been made readily available to the persons referred to in no. 1;
3. the acts are confined to those parts of the original program which are necessary to achieve interoperability.
(2) Information obtained through acts as referred to in subsection (1) may not be
1. used for purposes other than to achieve the interoperability of the independently created program,
2. given to third parties, except when necessary for the interoperability of the independently created program,
3. used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program which is substantially similar in its expression or for any other acts which infringe copyright.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are to be interpreted such that their application neither impairs the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably impairs the rightholder’s legitimate interests.
---
[1]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_urhg/englisch_ur...
The problem is that copyright laws, at least in most jurisdictions, have never been updated to cope with the fact that computers copy things so many times. Including to load content into memory so they can display it to you. (And on the web, they also often count downloading it to a tempfile in your cache as a separate copy!)
So while the website may grant you a license to download its content as-is for viewing, that doesn't mean they grant you a license to modify it and copy it again.
Yes, this is an utterly idiotic interpretation of copyright law, that effectively breaks the internet and much of what computers do. However, from a particular point of view, it is one that follows logically.
See art 5.1 of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_and_Information_So...
... makes only one exception obligatory: transient or incidental copying as part of a network transmission or legal use ...
Fuck off Axel Springer. Their “Bildzeitung” helped the rapid Verblödung (dumbification?) and radicalization especially against foreigners of the German population. Similar to what Fox News is doing in the US.
The idea that a page that's been copied over to us must sacrosanctly be viewed only as intended is absurd. Our speech rights must grant us a right to use tools to view and see things as we might dream, not merely as provided to us.
The war within the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace has really really come to a roiling boil in the past couple years, with all sorts of states trying to declare control over how their populations connect to the global information system. In 95% of cases, I think it makes the state look like an absolute fool.
And very rarely is it being done in accordance with the will of the states people, which is quite chilling!! So called democratic states, with elite capture, doing ill against the free thinking world. These are losers, professional idiots at best, an actively working against humanity for shitty shady hidden motives more likely alas. They are losers, and while this will likely only intensify & make the world tenser and worse and obstructed and jammed up, I have some faith that they will continue to lose their war, that JP Barlow's triumphalism over their shitty ways will keep proving out. These people are idiots, and powerless, and the courts trying to enforce these bad unenforceable dumb laws only illegitemizes the idea of governance. Which I believe strongly in, and want to be a force for good!! But alas, not here.
Here is one way to do it: they could take a page out of google's Web Environment Integrity proposal and make it illegal to serve any page within Germany unless the integrity is proven. Done. VPNs are problematic? Ban them. Seems very enforceable to me.
Why do you think it is un-enforceable?
The whole Web would simply become incompatible with Germany. So this would be trivial to bypass on a technical level, and unacceptable on a social level. Completely unenforceable indeed.
I don't think this is a good comparison, though. Google cannot force people to use WEI -yet-. The government can.
>The whole Web would simply become incompatible with Germany.
I think the ad-supported web would just LOVE this idea and would become compatible with Germany ASAP.
> So this would be trivial to bypass on a technical level
I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a way for the tech-savvy. But all the trivial ways can very well be blocked.
> unacceptable on a social level
In Germany, you cannot install security cameras in a building unless all the owners agree, on grounds of privacy. But the ISPs keep all of your traffic logs, law firms get these logs, and mass-send cease-and-desist letters using automated systems. This is also not particularly acceptable, but it happens everyday and looks like it is very enforceable.
Lets not be naive and think this is unenforceable on the grounds of being "socially unacceptable".
only for some short time allowed by the law
> law firms get these logs,
Not it you have them for law enforcement, then it's illegal to give them to someone else.
1. using antivirus software to infringe on copyright of viruses
2. using any bookmarklet
3. scratching out typos in a book you're reading
4. game mods
It doesn't matter that ad block is logically equivalent to bookmarklets. If elected judges determine it's illegal, none of these "nerd" defenses will work. The only defense is to vote in legislators who will pass laws protecting it.
The term of art for this is "legal certainty" and finding the inconsistencies help iron out when something is off.
So yes, it does matter how logically an ad block is equivalent to bookmarklets, because inconsistencies crack and consistency composes.
I get your point that judges can rule, but it's not the end all be all of it.
The nerd defense of "I will use technology to avoid being caught" does work, and it's the only nerd defense worth pursuing.
Judges are not elected, in Germany at least. They are appointed.
So this applies to published adblockers and things, I guess. You could roll your own, just like you could tear pages out of a book you bought. You could mod a game privately.
If the adblocker-or-whatever is published, it's like publishing a mod to somebody's book. Like a script you point at an ebook that changes it. Is that considered the same as publishing a copy the book with small parts changed? Why?
The article highlights the line in the German copyright act about exclusive rights to "the translation, adaptation, arrangement and other modifications of a computer program". I'm unclear on the scope here. I don't think this applies to people making edits to copyrighted programs in private.
"(1) Any person who prepares a criminal offence [Wer eine Straftat nach] pursuant to Section 202a or Section 202b by: 1. passwords or other security codes that enable access to data (Section 202a (2)), or 2. computer programs whose purpose is to commit such an act, manufactures, procures, sells, transfers to another, distributes or otherwise makes available, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with a fine. (2) Section 149 (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis."
Not sure how this is twisted into opening devtools.
"Among other things, criminal charges were filed against the Federal Office for Information Security, as the office allegedly violated the law itself." But were dropped. Sounds like this is a vague law that can lead to a lot of harassing intimidation, followed by cases being dropped.
Apparently 1st world countries have solved all other problems and are splitting hairs looking for stupid things to legislate.
Comparing the USA to Nazism is allowed, since that actually is Nazism.
Most companies tolerate them, sometimes encourage them, as long is it is not disruptive. Cracks and cheats however are definitely illegal and companies often take action against people who write or use such tools, usually account bans, but there have been some lawsuits the game company won.
Fundamentally, there is no difference between a cheating tool and a harmless mod, and many mods are baltent copyright infringement using assets without a license. But because mods are generally beneficial to the company, they have no intention to use legal means to stop them.
In the United States, it's legal to modify your machine to interpret the programs running on it other than the way intended by the machine creator and the program author (Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc, 1992). But every nation has its own system of laws and the precedents of one aren't binding on another (and I don't, personally, know if the Galoob v. Nintendo precedent extends to modifying the data on a PC or only protects the far-more-complicated approach of intermediating between PC storage and the CPU).
To my perception, the position of mods in the gaming ecosystem is mostly, for want of a better term, a "gentleman's agreement" or "gentleman's understanding." An awful lot of game devs got started by modding other games, and they feel more than zero empathy for the folks who are basically learning to be the next generation of developers, if not future employees. It's a bit akin to Adobe's position on cracked copies of Photoshop: they reserve the right to sue so companies can't just thumb their nose at their IP rights and use their product with no remuneration, but individual non-corporate users of pirated copies are, at worst, unpaid advertising for the product and, at best, future customers. Some game dev houses are exempt from this "empathy rule;" Nintendo is famously litigious (although even then, they tend to target projects that are, whether the developer knows it or not, in direct competition with Nintendo; AM2R puttered along happily for years until Nintendo decided to release their own Metroid 2 remake).
Is it absurd? Yes. On the other hand, absurdity has never slowed a lawyer...
So they want to change the law so that they can impose their business model on people?
That's absurd.
They may be right; it happens all the time that laws have unintended consequences.
People hate ads, they are annoying and provide virtually no value to the end user.
People hate subscriptions, they cost money, are annoying to track, and gravitate towards being impossible to cancel.
Donations are feel good, but no one donates. Conversion rates tend to be <5% of users.
This topic always draws tons of outrage and anger over ads, but no one ever provides a solution besides "Users are entitled to everything on the internet and don't owe anyone anything. If you put content online, you are dumb to expect compensation, but I really love your work!"
[Today.] In the past (1980s, maybe?) I remember getting these fat volumes consisting of only ads (they had everything, from clothing to electronics to LEGO sets) and browsing them with my siblings for hours on end, and fantasizing about getting some of these.
I believe the old style ads, where the website you visit serves locally hosted ads that are in line with the subject matter, not only are not frustrating but actually provide some value as they help you to discover more about things you are already interested in.
This is your point of confusion. The people you're talking to are indifferent to your work. If it's there and someone links it to them, they might read it, but if it's not, that's fine too. They're sure as hell not going to run malware for the privilege though.
It's been a running joke for decades in discussion forums that people don't read the articles. They don't pay for it because it's actually not worth anything to them.
I know Alan Bellows wants to write, but the thing is, he wants to write for money, so that he can write and live. I want to read it, but the other thing is, I don't want to give him any money. I suppose I might do if I had like ten times as much of the stuff, but I don't. The whole situation is enigmatic.
I know that this isn't that simple.. someone who's not employed or has a job where they can mostly do nothing might just "want" to write and be able to, while others might _really really_ want to write but they can't afford it.
Still, as long as there exists someone who wants - and is able to - give me good content with no strings attached, I'd rather consume that than content written for money.
A hobbyist-run internet can still be done today too... no need for mega-corporations to run every website when it costs a few ££ per month to run a web server that could easily handle millions of monthly connections.
Also, it's not my job to validate a scummy business model like advertising: if they (the corporations with ads) want to use them as their primary revenue source that's on them, not me!
Quieter. More focused. Better.
I've always said the issue with the internet is that dreadful attention extractivism logic that led us into those anti-human patterns. Get rid of advertising and you get rid of all of its symptoms altogether.
Sounds like stealing by just obstructing my view.
How do I get these filthy hands out of my pocket?
In Hungary this right refers to homeowners. It says that it's illegal to obstruct someone's view in specific ways, for example, to build something that puts an overly large shade in an otherwise previously sunny yard. The newer building becomes legally questionable (even valid building permits), if it causes "unnecessary disturbance" to a homeowner's view.
For something more hopeful regarding ads, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidade_Limpa . I wish this on every place I go.
Does it apply to organic, individual differences in perception?
Maybe when we all get a neural interface we can be calibrated as per some industry standard profile.
Edit: nevermind, I read the whole thing. The lower court argued as I did, but in revision they apparently found that the DOM tree is code generated by code and thus an expression of the program.
It would seem to me because user browsers are user-modifiable open source, there really shouldn't be any deep expectation by any web content producer that the generated code into DOM will be displayed in any user consistent manner. But I suppose if that was accepted rational, that means ad blockers should sit deeper in the browser (or at the network level) to avoid problems with countries that view personal modification as digital copyright infringement if the license doesn't allow it. That should secure ad blocking — until legislation specifically bans ad blockers as a function completely...
It feels like it would be a big step to move from gatekeeping personal modification, to compelling code generation by the user from the framework of copyright.
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...
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.
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.
It was a bit confusing when Roseanne and Kim Basinger had the exact same voice.
What happens usually is that a) copyright investigators (on behalf of copyright holder associations) or b) ISPs do basic analysis and "flag" IP addresses.
The copyright investigators usually look at torrenting pools, log all the IPs, and do some sort of query on those IPs (whois, reverse dns, etc). Then they pursue the biggest targets. "Hey, look, this IP that belongs to Meta has torrented 4234234TBs worth of our clients' data. Bad Meta". And the headlines pour.
Your local ISPs do basic inspection, and can see you're torrentig, but usually (unless they take extra steps) won't know what you're torrenting. But they can send a letter saying "hey, knock it off!".
If you're using a "proxy", either via VPN or VPS (seedbox) then your primary IP address never gets caught in these logs. So they won't be able to know who it was. Sure, they can go the legal route and subpoena the VPS providers, but that's where the "friendly jurisdiction" comes into play. Unless they get raided by said 3 letter agencies, they won't care much about an angry letter from a lawyer.
btw a representative of Leaseweb told me they don't do individual accounts any more - they're focusing on the European sovereign cloud transition.
Torrent to your heart’s content.
I actually browse full time like this; all traffic leaving my house via my ISP is VPN (or some limited exclusions that all use TLS).
Everyone who actually writes software, meanwhile, and understands that code IS data, is collectively facepalming right now. I felt the tremors. Nevermind that almost since its inception, JavaScript has always been an optional component of the web, and my browser very well lets me turn that off. The ability to do so is critical to my security posture. That it also happens to remove distracting visual noise is a nice side bonus.
Firmly, without reservation: if you deliver to me content A, I am under NO OBLIGATION to actually consume content B, merely because you included it in the same package.
We have technology to apply almost unlimited controls on people. The only thing protecting humanity (very feebly right now) is legislation that works at the service of human dignity. But we stand on a precipice, and we are slipping.
The legal view here seems to be that a third party removed content B while delivering content A, and therefore violated the copyright of the provided work.
It's not even framed as redistribution of copyrighted works, it's violating the "exclusive right of modification available under § 69c"
I'm curious how this will play out.
The only content you're interested in is content A, and the supplier chose a business model which requires you to consume content B against your will. Now they sued a third party which is stripping content B as a service to you.
I believe a case needs to be made that content B is not part of the original work provided.
Not easy though...
>Not easy though...
IANAL, and definitely not eine Rechtsanwalt.
That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes place moments before that ad is displayed.
Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their "expression" being thwarted?
Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here."
If that's actually the case, just having a box where the ad would be that says "this is a space for advertisements" should be enough to satisfy "violations" of the copyright owner's "expression."
Or he steers away from that and states "my program places an Ad here, removing this operation modifies my work", making not the Ad itself part of the work but the process (and outcome?) of an Ad being placed there...
I do hope there's a better legal conclusion the court can take here. If I am legally required to execute arbitrary code on my machine as part of some openly accessible content, I expect a clear contract to be agreed upon...
In practice, I arrive at any given site with nothing more than a crude hyperlink and almost no description of the contents. (Maybe I have a search page summary, often I don't. If I do it's usually rather out of date and incomplete.) I cannot trivially know whether content B is present, or what sort of agreement I may or may not be entering into, until data is actually transferred to my device. By that point, I typically already have content B, before I could possibly make an informed choice about whether I wanted to spend my bandwidth downloading it, what cost it may represent, etc.
Technological solutions already exist here. A provider can choose to lock content behind a paywall, communicating an actual cost, and require that I pay it. Providers can also usually quite trivially detect ad blocking technology, and require that I disable it before delivering the content. (At that point, I am making an informed choice!) A provider doing neither of these things has a very weak case imho. I suppose we'll see if the courts agree.
Maybe a case can be made that the work is not shipped in entirety but needs to be assembled at the consumer...?
The complex part here is that they don't sue you as the consumer, or consider the execution/decompilation illegal, but AdBlock as the tool which removes the unwanted content from it.
In that interpretation the only legal way to consume the content is completely unmodified, and the seller built a business-model based on adding something that only he benefits from. Weird scenario...
https://www.axelspringer.com/de/ax-press-release/sam-altman-...
Large scale copyright theft is fine, individual consumers have to watch ads.
(One piece in particular I'm personally naive on is what German legal precedent says about consumer's right to modify consumed material. In the US, an author's copyright doesn't stop me, the reader of a copy I bought, from highlighting the book up, or crossing out passages I don't like, or tearing pages out, or turning the thing into a delightful booksafe. Naively, I'd believe ABP should be considered in that category of thing: an accessibility tool people use to modify the material they consume to better fit their needs. It doesn't modify the author's original work and it doesn't grant the reader the right to transmit the modified work to someone else, so I'm unclear on how copyright protection should be thought to enter in here, and I bet the text of the ruling clarifies).
Germany at it again: now trying to reopen the "adblockers are illegal" debate
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44934571
Is Germany on the brink of banning ad blockers?
Ad Reading As a Service.
Maybe I would not have a problem with this law if the websites were held responsible for the ads that contain malware.
Then everyone wins except the advertiser / ad network.
Court overreach
Plastering websites that contain content you want to consume is paying for the website.
The problem with that interpretation is that such content that's being "plastered" (that is, unvetted third-party software which wants to execute on my property -- in fact, such ads are generally served from sites other than the one that I visited) over the website aren't actually part of the website.
They are third-party programs unrelated (except via a business relationship between the website proprietor and the ad network -- one that I have no part of, nor have I been consulted WRT said contract) to the website itself.
By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
I refuse to do so. As it is, after all, my property.
If the proprietor of a website doesn't like it, they can block access to the site for those (like myself) who use ad blockers (which some websites already do).
Whether I choose to block ads just because I don't like ads or because I'm trying to protect myself from malicious software distributed through those ad networks -- or both -- is irrelevant. My property is my property and I get to decide what code runs on it. Full stop.
> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting).
Your choice should be "I don't want these ads/this code, no thanks for the content."
And you're right: websites that don't want users with ad blockers can themselves deny access, and if ad blockers explicitly announce themselves so that the website can make that decision, great. That'd be the fair thing, right?
My actual take on this has more nuance than I'd care to fit into a HN comment (of course).
I'm not dogmatically "pro ads". I've worked at ad-supported places and I plan / hope I never do again. I think the current web browsing experience is a nightmare (ads, clickbait, content specifically made longer to fit more ads and/or increase presence). It all sucks. I'm also not absolving all the people publishing sites who would disown third-party ads like "oh well WE don't pick what's displayed" from their responsibilities.
Ultimately, though, ads is how (nearly all) websites get paid, and just as I want to get paid for my work, I think I should pay others for theirs (or at least not benefit from their work if I don't want to pay). I don't try to get around paywalls, I don't try to get around sites that think my browser isn't giving them enough latitude. I just walk away. No one's forcing me to load their ads against my will.
Actually, they're not. Especially in the context of the German court's ruling. As I pointed out here[0]:
That said, assuming that digital ads work the same way in Germany as they do
elsewhere, such ads are tacked on to the site after an auction that takes
place moments before that ad is displayed.
Given that the "copyright holder" of the site doesn't even know what ad will
be displayed and, in point of fact, will likely never know which ads will be
displayed to which individuals viewing their website, how is their
"expression" being thwarted?
Given that simple truth, the only "expressive" claim that the copyright
holder could make would be that "there should be an ad of some sort here."
I don't disagree that folks should be paid for their work. That said, let's address not just ads, but a significant portion of the 'net that displays ads. That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes?
>> By your logic, I should be forced to run arbitrary code on my private property. Is that correct?
>I was going to say "no, obviously not", but actually, if you want to consume the content you're trying to get? Yes. That is the implicit contract for consuming web content (regardless of how aware the website is about the quality of the ads its users end up getting).
What implicit contract? Take the link (https://torrentfreak.com/ad-blocking-is-not-piracy-decision-... ) associated with the discussion we're both commenting upon.
Let's say (as is true with most links I'm presented with) I'm unaware of the business model, quality and safety of that particular link. Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware? Should I assume that said site is a "good" site that won't hijack my private property and/or attempt to steal my PII and/or my money?
That's a big part of the problem. In most cases, I have absolutely no idea as to what I might find when clicking on a link. Do you believe that I should, in advance of doing so, metaphorically drop my pants, bend over and spread wide? Because that's essentially what browsing the web without an ad blocker is.
As such, I take a defensive posture and protect myself. If the owner of the website doesn't want me to do that, they are welcome to tell me so. At which point I can make up my mind whether or not I believe the content is worth my time, attention and/or money.
Requiring me to give up that time, attention and/or money without any idea as to the quality or safety of the data presented is like walking into a store (of a type and with an inventory that's completely unknown), handing the clerk a credit card and walking out with a sealed bag of who knows what.
Given your attitude, may I assume that you do that sort of thing all the time?
But requiring me in BOHICA[1] fashion to allow random strangers, sight unseen, to run arbitrary code on my private property to enrich themselves -- likely at my expense -- without even a by-your-leave seems more like a scam than a business model.
I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. You do you and visit every site without any script or ad blocking and with the naive hope that every site you visit is run by honest, decent human beings. Good luck with that. You're gonna need it.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44955239
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_slang_terms#B...
Frankly, I find this kind of tone unpleasant. Direct it at someone else. I'm pretty sure I've made no similar statements at you.
> Should I, sight unseen, prance over to the site without protecting myself from potential malware?
No, absolutely not. I think protecting yourself from malware is fine (though I do not think all ad tracking is "malware" even if it sucks).
> That being sites that scrape stack overflow/exchange sites and publish the work of others along with their ads. Those folks should be especially rewarded, yes?
Nope, I think those sites are primarily (if not solely) stealing content produced elsewhere and provide zero actual added value, and I think they should be illegal and sued to oblivion. And I think that's still in line with "people should get paid for their work" because the actual work was the original content creation.
> I expect you'll disagree and that's fine.
I don't disagree with having a defensive posture. I'd say I disagree with having a defensive posture and still wanting to get the content (which is not your stance since you've stated you're fine with a website detecting ad blocker and not showing you content).
Mostly, though, I just don't think we're "forced" to do any of this. We just don't like that the actual solution is to not get content we don't want to pay for in some way. In fact, maybe where we disagree the most is that I don't think you should get the option to decide "midway" through loading a page whether or not you want the content, because what actually happens in reality is: you get what you want, the website doesn't. I don't think that's being an "honest, decent human being" as a user.
On the flip side of all of this, and maybe repeating myself from an earlier comment, I think a website should be liable for all the content (ads, JS, etc) that ends up on your screen when loading a page, even if it's served by a third party, because the website is the one to introduced that third party.
I was under the (apparently incorrect) assumption that you believe folks should either watch ads, pay for the content with cash money or stay away from any site that one is unwilling to do so. Further, I got the sense (incorrectly) you were in support of not using defensive tools, as that would deprive the website owner of revenue -- especially upon first arriving at the site -- even if the content of the site was unknown prior to visiting.
If I seemed less than positive in my reply to you, it was due to the (apparent) misconceptions I listed above. My mistake.
Again, apologies and thank you for clarifying and setting me straight.
Unless I continue to misunderstand (and I hope not), I think we're pretty much in violent agreement here:
1. Content creators deserve to be paid for their work;
2. in support of (1), website owners have property rights which empowers them to require (or not) viewing of ads, paying of fees (whether those be subscriptions or single item sales) and/or other business models;
3. Sadly, ad networks (and many shady websites as well) aren't very good at blocking and/or want to distribute malware and abusive content to be run client side, requiring (or at least strongly incentivizing) end users to use ad/script blockers to protect themselves against those malicious actors;
4. End users also have property rights which empowers them to decide for themselves what code is permitted to execute on their (client-side) systems, and to restrict the access of downloaded code to limit data exfiltration.
Edit: I'd add that unless and until both the website owner and the client accessing the website can come to a "meeting of minds" there can be no contract, implicit or otherwise -- especially if there has been no previous interaction between those parties.
It's one way, but not necessarily the only way. There should be an option available for the people who do not want to be distracted by advertising.
A business choosing to be ad-based is the business's problem. A person choosing to not experience ads is that person's problem. They just don't want to do business with each other and either party should have the freedom to make that decision.
I do think a lot should change around advertising, tracking, etc. For example: I think you should be able to set an option on your browser that says "no ads" that sites legally have to respect (even if the result is the site replies: "no content without ads"). At the same time, I think people should have to "declare" their ad blocker use.
It is literally what you have to pay for what you want to consume.