Mozilla warns Germany could soon declare ad blockers illegal

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.

This would ban most of computing tbh

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.

By that same logic I could claim that SHOWING me an ad by circumventing my ad blocker is interfering with the in memory execution of my ad blocker. Wtf.
or mandate which program can be used to access the page.
like an app.

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

You may take a look at DNS filtering solutions like Pi-Hole or AdGuardHome [1]. It blocks ads / trackers without directly interacting with website content.
[1] https://www.privacyguides.org/en/dns/#self-hosted-dns-filtering
- I'm aware, and I run a couple of Pi-hole VMs at home. The issue is DNS adblocking is only effective as long as the ads and the legit content don't come from the same domain.

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

2030? That's AGES awa- oh

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

Capitalism baby!
- People still look at me like I’m some sort of conspiracy theorist when I say that it’s all connected back to capitalism
Yeah as if things happening in US isn't chaotic enough. I wonder if that send signal to the world that it's okay to be suppress all rights suddenly
- The news is about to report on another US approved massacre in gaza, quick someone file a new form to spy on person communications, get that money transferred we said we didn’t have and for the love of god get some children in here we’re getting hungry.

"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

Fun fact: they've also been founded with CIA money.
- I bet the CIA would love to force everyone visiting a website to run their code
Axel Springer company is even worse, their CEO said a year ago that all east-germans are either fascist or communist and that their opinions are to be dismissed, basically stating us as second-class-citizen. He owns the most fakenews spewing tabloids in Germany, BILD and WELT If you want to pinpoint one person where hate and fakenews come from in central europe, Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer SE, is the culprit.
- Thank you for that information. Judging from Politco and Business Insider, they're pretty good at masking their hate and propaganda. Meaning, they're not as blatant as Fox News here in the states. Are they as shady about it for BLD and WELT?
Also this lawsuit has been ongoing for at least a decade iirc. Springer has been trying real hard.
Seems like you forgot the Bild Zeitung, the worst piece of media out there (comparable to the Sun I've heard):
It is the best-selling European newspaper and has the sixteenth-largest circulation worldwide. Bild has been described as "notorious for its mix of gossip, inflammatory language, and sensationalism" and as having a huge influence on German politicians.
They also bought a lot of other services, see this list, seems like it's not maintained anymore but still.
Let's also not forget the time that Mathias Döpfner stole the German election in 2021 so that the FDP could screw over the coalition, see here:
Zwei Tage vor der Bundestagswahl soll er Reichelt gedrängt haben: "Please Stärke die FDP. Wenn die sehr stark sind, können sie in Ampel so autoritär auftreten, dass die platzt und dann Jamaika funktioniert."

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.

I have DRM on my network, I manage my digital rights with an ad blocker. If you try and circumvent my digital right can I sue?
Issue is our government and justical system is stuck in many areas between 1980-1995.
God knows what logic they had for that
- Yeah, but if the indeed come and try to sue you, a competent lawyer will force the case dismissal and they will end up having to review whatever law they pass.
I think the logic here is that the code to deliver an ad is protected by copyright and your modification of that code is considered a derivative work that is protected under copyright law.
But that's not what happens at the browser level.
The HTML code is sent, whole cloth, to the browser. The browser inspects the code, you know, to do browser stuff.
During this inspection, the code is put against the ad block rules. Nothing is modified. If the code violates some sort of logic, it doesn't get rendered properly.
Hell, the opposite argument is probably more damning. Say you have this literal HTML:

<html> <title>I use arch</title> <p> Btw hello World</html>
You could argue the browser is NOT showing your code the way you intended (e.g. "Btw hello World" being rendered though I'm not sure if spaces would be there or not).
At the end of the day, unless you send your webpage as an image, you can't guarantee how the browser will render it.
- You could argue the browser is NOT showing your code the way you intended
  I don't think that's a good example because how line breaks are treated is defined in the HTML standard.
  A better example might be "reader" mode on mobile browsers? Or that mode in Opera where their servers act as a proxy to compress images and reduce the amount of data required to load the website for slow connections.
  Actually the default HTML form and button elements are good one. Chromium and Firefox have different default styles.
- People have confused HTML with PDF for a long time.
- yeah, website code editing is not needed, blocking of resource loading and browser API editing is what is done, and of course attaching additional stylesheets. sometimes HTML "code" editing happens too, but that's probably not that important.
  also browsers are called user agents for a reason. they should be an agent of the user, not of website owners, for the purpose of communicating with the website on the behalf of the user
  You could argue the browser is NOT showing your code the way you intended (e.g. "Btw hello World" being rendered though I'm not sure if spaces would be there or not).
  and that shouldn't be legally required either. for one the web standards were not developed as laws of a government, but there's also software bugs and unspecified behaviors, website owners should never be able to sue browser makers for not showing their website exactly as they expected.
Using their logic, accessibility tools also violate copyright.

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?

What are you thinking?? Against the capital owners?

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

LOL they WANTED it to be!!
- Yep and they made it that way on a lot of DVDs!

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

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.

Among other things, Germany's been quite strict about piracy, so they've been holding the L for a while now, and continue to do so..
Its a preparation for war with russia. If journalism and free flow of information keeps existing, its hard to explain to people they should support such madness, so its time to silence everyone
- Frankly, I don't think so, the vast majority are not fans of Russia, especially after the invasion of Ukraine. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that Russia is a threat, and there's no need for any media suppression for that

yes, beacon of democracy for europe right there.

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

Mozilla guy saying there's a risk, but i dont really see it, myself.

Firstly, does copyright really prevent modification for personal use? I dont think it does.

Secondly, you're not so much modifying the content as not consuming part of it. I think thats an important distinction for the court to grapple with.

Logic and reason never stopped monied forces from twisting the letter and spirit of the law to suit their own desires.
- Sorry, I think that's a fairly American take.
  Money can exert influence on law makers, sure.
  In my experience here in Australia though, courts are pretty good at interpreting the law without undue influence.

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

Run a DNS ad blocker like pihole or Adguard.

Germany? 😲

Third time's a charm for Germany, I guess :) (running and ducking for cover)
/s

Same thing goes for the "porn bans will destroy the internet" posts:

One day it will happen and a few countries will do this, ban adblock or require ID for porn. But I am not so certain it's a bad thing for us technically savvy people. Tor, i2p and such will get a huge influx of people. Totally new cultures will form there. It will be exciting. I will not NOT block advertising and I think many will do the same. So even if that's going to be illegal, it will either not be enforced (that would be bad) or it will lead to people finding a different place in the internet that advertising hasn't reached yet :)

people won't actively seek to break the law just because something sucks. if that was the case we wouldn't have things like facebook or twitter or tiktok.
- The statement doesn't follow. Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok have nothing to do with people's willingness to break laws. Those platforms are popular because people want what they offer.