For The Fifth Time Now, German Court Says Adblocking Is Legal

[Rishi]

Content source

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160330/16421134057/fifth-time-now-german-court-says-adblocking-is-legal.shtml

A few months back we noted that various German publishers, including publishing giant Axel Springer kept suing adblockers, claiming they were illegal... and they kept losing. AdBlock Plus notes that German publishers are now 0 for 5 as yet another legal challenge to ad blocking has been rejected:

We received news late last week that we’d won our fifth straight lawsuit in Germany. This time it was brought by one Germany’s top newspapers, the Süddeutsche Zeitung (think a German version of the New York Times), and it follows victories over Axel Springer, RTL Interactive, ProSieben/Sat1 and Zeit/Handelsblatt. (That’s a veritable who’s who of old guard German publishing btw.)


The setting was Munich this time round, but the outcome was the same as the four times previous: it is indeed legal for users to block ads and our Acceptable Ads initiative is not a detriment for publishers but rather a potential benefit to them.

The judge clearly recognized the issues, noting that there's no contract between users and a site that requires them to view ads, no matter how much publishers may want to pretend that what they refer to as a "social contract" is somehow a legal contract. The court also, rightly, noted that the law is not designed to pump up a business model that is failing, and that it's up to the publishers themselves to create better business models.

Source

 

[DJ Panda]

I personally believe that adblock is unethical. If you have a layers protection for viruses, malware, and exploits. Blocking is just a form of stealing reguardless the ad. I use the Google ad service for security products and get all sorts of amazing ads.

 

[Soulbound]

I personally believe that adblock is unethical. If you have a layers protection for viruses, malware, and exploits. Blocking is just a form of stealing reguardless the ad. I use the Google ad service for security products and get all sorts of amazing ads.

And I personally endorse ad blocking. Makes viewing a page a breeze.

 

[DJ Panda]

And I personally endorse ad blocking. Makes viewing a page a breeze.

Very true but some older computers using adblock expend more RAM using one than not.AdBlock Plus’s effect on Firefox’s memory usage | Nicholas Nethercote

 

[hjlbx]

Here's a scary thought... what if browser publishers create a EULA that makes ads legally binding (contractual) = ad blocking would be a breach of contract in terms of civil law, but wouldn't be illegal in terms of criminal law.

Ad blocking can only be made illegal (criminal) if it is written into law (criminal code) by a governing jurisdiction (at least in the US) - like by the US Congress or state legislature.

 

[Soulbound]

Have anyone bothered checking cnn website without adblock then again with adblock count? Be surprise what's in that site. Or uk's the guardian

Both shouldn't really have so much under the hood in my opinion. I'm there to read news not get swarmed by ads left right and center.

The whole make money via ads hit hit big time when first iteration of ad blocking was made

Just ask famous youtubers that are gamers and have partnership to see if they get the same money as they used to a few years back in same amount of views on a video. This is also why there are more and more streamers. And they still have to rely on donations. Although that's another topic for another day...

 

[Entreri]

Too many ads and some are used for malware injection.

A number of major news websites have seen adverts hijacked by a malicious campaign that attempts to install “ransomware” on users computers (NY Times, BBC etc) recently.

First for security and then for annoyance (e.g. Youtube) I like to use adblock one browser.

It is not just the porn sites filled with STD's.

 

[DJ Panda]

Too many ads and some are used for malware injection.

A number of major news websites have seen adverts hijacked by a malicious campaign that attempts to install “ransomware” on users computers (NY Times, BBC etc) recently.


First for security and then for annoyance (e.g. Youtube) I like to use adblock one browser.

It is not just the porn sites filled with STD's.

Update browser and other software, add an antivirus, Anti-Malware and anti exploit. YouTube posses no real threat. Your just hurting innocent sites with your actions.

 

[Soulbound]

Update browser and other software, add an antivirus, Anti-Malware and anti exploit. YouTube posses no real threat. Your just hurting innocent sites with your actions.

You mean crushing the money making deals that are made behind any user's knowledge basically.

Why exactly is sites and people getting paid for ad revenue?

So I am sorry but it is not hurting innocent sites. Ads if only one is displayed fine and fair enough but the user has the choice to choose what he does not want it to be loaded when viewing even a NEWS SITE for example.

 

[DJ Panda]

1. When you visiting a site you have to agree to certain terms, cookies, popups, ads, etc. If you don't like what they show don't use an landlocked.. Leave the site! Blocking is almost like piracy, you are taking what you want and the ads give those people what they need to stay afloat.

2. Very simple the ad revenue from ANYTHING is needed for paying workers, keeping a site up, and to make the best quality they can. It shouldn't matter how many ads there are. Users shouldn't have the choice because based on what a majority of people say. They are using adblock for themselves, and sorry to include YOU as well.

Do you think news sites can take these blocks? For a bit yes, but, eventually everyone will get hurt because of the content. If they are not able to pay writers there articles will get worse, thus more adblockers.

The internet is not free..

 

[Soulbound]

1. When you visiting a site you have to agree to certain terms, cookies, popups, ads, etc. If you don't like what they show don't use an landlocked.. Leave the site! Blocking is almost like piracy, you are taking what you want and the ads give those people what they need to stay afloat.

2. Very simple the ad revenue from ANYTHING is needed for paying workers, keeping a site up, and to make the best quality they can. It shouldn't matter how many ads there are. Users shouldn't have the choice because based on what a majority of people say. They are using adblock for themselves, and sorry to include YOU as well.

Do you think news sites can take these blocks? For a bit yes, but, eventually everyone will get hurt because of the content. If they are not able to pay writers there articles will get worse, thus more adblockers.

The internet is not free..

right, so by your reason, then any single website that contain any form of ads should first list a user agreement before anyone can even view anything, just like when you install a solution in your device, you need to agree to such terms. Does this happen? No, so point 1 is invalid.

Point 2: ad revenue is not what any company bases its income.

as for site news can take blocks? They still exist to this day and for how long has adblocks been around? ABP has been around since 2006 for example.

So at this stage I still cannot find a reason why it should not be illegal or anything that promotes with valid reason the No Use of ad blocking solutions, aside from giving the money cow more money and we having to digest a ton of adverts that 1 are annoying and 2 can be hijacked and infected without the website owner and maintainers know about it.

 

[DJ Panda]

right, so by your reason, then any single website that contain any form of ads should first list a user agreement before anyone can even view anything, just like when you install a solution in your device, you need to agree to such terms. Does this happen? No, so point 1 is invalid.

Point 2: ad revenue is not what any company bases its income.

as for site news can take blocks? They still exist to this day and for how long has adblocks been around? ABP has been around since 2006 for example.

So at this stage I still cannot find a reason why it should not be illegal or anything that promotes with valid reason the No Use of ad blocking solutions, aside from giving the money cow more money and we having to digest a ton of adverts that 1 are annoying and 2 can be hijacked and infected without the website owner and maintainers know about it.

Such agreements are not detailed but as a user of a service you should think that if you block an ad what does it do in the long run?

Adblock has yes been around for quite a long time. However, it has been gaining more steam and people are feeding their inpatients by blocking ads. Ads are not 100% of the income but are used for keeping a site afloat.
I don't believe adblocking should be illegal but people should be more considerate. It doesn't matter if the ads are annoying you should deal with the annoyance, google as released a customizable ad option that can put what interests you. Your not paying the money so what does it matter?? The sites that are advertised. Just because something frets richter doesn't make it bad. As for malicious advertising do what I already recommended. UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE! Stops exploits or you could use a simple anti exploit software.

 

[Soulbound]

Such agreements are not detailed but as a user of a service you should think that if you block an ad what does it do in the long run?

Adblock has yes been around for quite a long time. However, it has been gaining more steam and people are feeding their inpatients by blocking ads. Ads are not 100% of the income but are used for keeping a site afloat.
I don't believe adblocking should be illegal but people should be more considerate. It doesn't matter if the ads are annoying you should deal with the annoyance, google as released a customizable ad option that can put what interests you. Your not paying the money so what does it matter?? The sites that are advertised. Just because something frets richter doesn't make it bad. As for malicious advertising do what I already recommended. UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE! Stops exploits or you could use a simple anti exploit software.

Unless there is a user agreement present before you even visit the site, I do not see exactly why you should consider what it does in the long run to such site. Just because you are denying them additional funding. So my points stands.

In regards to people should be more considerate, let me ask you when exactly do these companies take the user into consideration? if they did they wouldnt flood us with adverts left right and center, beacons and the list goes on. Again I recommend you using one solution and visit said sites to see exactly what is under the hood. Lets not forget data that gets fed across advertising companies without you even knowing.

So if I understand people kick off with the so called privacy violation of W10 (despite there is an actual user agreement upon install in which I guarantee you 1 in perhaps 40 users actually reads it), but then they should actually give in to ads?

You do not use an ad blocker because you choose not to, we respect that, but there is no denial that the reason why most of us use adblockers is not simply to prevent a swarm of useless ads flashing every corner, but also whats behind the hood.

as for the update comment, what exactly made you assume systems are not updated? Not to mention that no solution is 100% virus free.

You made a comment of internet is not free. correct, you pay for a connection to a network. You pay to your ISP. we do not take things for granted for the better part, but I do not ever recall seeing anywhere in all this time where users WANT more ads or even ads.

Guess this sums up my view on this matter. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[jamescv7]

Adblocker has a pros and cons, what the court's verdict implies to the concern of users; many advertising today are already at aggressive where aready reach the limit from standards. Remember that not everyone are using adblocker so those advertisements is continuously circulating the revenues.

 

[hjlbx]

Without ad blocker I might not use internet very much...

 

[Brahman]

The problem lies with the business model.When the adds are blocked the content provider feels they are being cheated and when the content is provided along with ads the receiver feels the same. The perception of both are not going to change unless the business model changes. The Brave browser (Brave Software) is a right step towards changing the perception of users. It is a win-win for content providers and users. IMHO more such revenue sharing model will help the industry to grow in a sustainable way.

 

[bunchuu]

The problem lies with the business model.When the adds are blocked the content provider feels they are being cheated and when the content is provided along with ads the receiver feels the same. The perception of both are not going to change unless the business model changes. The Brave browser (Brave Software) is a right step towards changing the perception of users. It is a win-win for content providers and users. IMHO more such revenue sharing model will help the industry to grow in a sustainable way.

I agree with you and with @hjlbx
and for advertising agency, with proper content strategy and inbound marketing, I believe they will generate more leads and traffic.

 

[Noxx]

I've said it in another thread, and I'll say it again -- I take no shame in blocking ads. I see enough of them on television and while out shopping. Putting aside the fact they slow down your browsing experience, I have no interest in being bombarded with ads when I see them constantly elsewhere. If nothing else, disable adblock on websites you support. Just my two cents for what it's worth.

 

[OokamiCreed]

Will read through the longer posts later on. For now will only state my feelings on adblock.

As soon as I knew about adblocking, I used it. I always will. Period. Ads kill bandwidth. Comcast has 300GB bandwidth cap now and I will not pay more money because ads want to suck up my internet. Do I use over 300GB? You beat I do... very easily. Games are huge, videos on YouTube require large sums of download (over 1GB on HD video at 10 minutes - give or take). I also will certainly not allow it to kill my CPU usage (as ads do on page loading) for ANYONE. Not to mention horrid page load times...

I have Adguard on at all times (I also highly endorse uBlock Origin). Even added it to filter Spotify. Does it block its ads? Yes. Both audio and video (the audio is understandable but video? Really? Were the flash ads not enough?). I will keep doing this. Spotify isn't exactly in the position to say it's unethical after some of things they have done to artist.

In short, kill all ads. If you want money, provide a reliable and well rounded service with free/paid or just paid services (that is worth the money) or post a donation button (as I've said SO many times on MT - people can be very generous. You'll find far more money in donations than ads). Ads are a real cheap and dirty way to "earn" money. Especially with malvertising going around. There are far more reasons to use Adblock than to get rid of it...

That is my permanent stance on ads.

 

[Rishi]

Poll added for refined results on this discussion.