Axel Springer-Verlag has (again) lost a lawsuit against the creators of Adblock Plus: Adblocking does not violate copyright law.
We get it: advertising on Internet sites can be terribly annoying.
Sometimes it can only be seen discreetly in the margins, which is justifiable, but often pages are so flooded with advertising that you can hardly make out the article - also one reason why we no longer have advertising on our site. That's why many users have installed the browser plugin "Adblock Plus", but Axel Springer Publishing doesn't like it: They sued and lost... again.
The lawsuit
For several years, the Axel Springer publishing house, which publishes “Bild” and “Welt,” among others, has repeatedly filed lawsuits against the company Eyeo , which offers the Adblock Plus plugin free of charge. Sometimes even partially successful, but the last lawsuit , which has been pending since 2019, is rather desperate: Adblock Plus allegedly violates copyright because the source code of the site would be changed.
Specifically, the lawsuit states that the HTML code used to display a website should be protected by copyright - and therefore any technology that changes the appearance of a website is illegal.
And this is what Adblock Plus does: it changes the appearance of the website by blocking advertising. At the same time, all other tools that prevent graphics from loading for users with weak internet, for example, would also have to be illegal.
The judgment
In order not to get too technical, here is a simple explanation:
A website is created in a programming language, for example PHP. The Internet browser then translates this into the HTML scripting language for display. So what Adblock Plus changes is the output HTML code, not the PHP code.
So it's not true that Adblock Plus changes the source code of the site, but that didn't stop Axel Springer Publishing from filing a lawsuit: The plugin would change the display of copyrighted material, which would be enough for a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
The Hamburg Regional Court has now rejected the lawsuit:
AdBlock Plus changes the structure of how websites are displayed in a browser, but not the code, but only the way in which this code flows.
The website is not changed in accordance with copyright law, nor is the underlying program code. The court also found that a contrary decision would constitute a “disproportionate interference” with the freedom of users. All addons and plugins that, for example, prevent images from being loaded, deactivating Javascript, blocking pop-ups and tracking elements, and even all translation aids and aids for visually impaired people would therefore be illegal.
Eyeo is pleased with the verdict
In a statement, Eyeo said it was pleased with the verdict:
“The Hamburg Regional Court has set an important precedent here: no company has the right to prohibit users from making their own browser settings. The ruling also gives many companies the legal certainty they need to continue developing applications that positively change users’ lives.”
said Eyeo managing director Till Faida. Axel Springer-Verlag meanwhile announced that it would appeal the verdict.
Sources: Eyeo , Torrentfreak
Also interesting:
Posts, likes and tags: 82 percent of Germans would like to permanently delete a trace on the Internet from 2021.
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )