cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34873574

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 247 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

This is truly dystopian. A ruling in Springer's favor here could imply that modifying anything on a webpage, even without distribution, would constitute a copyright violation (EDIT: only for material in which the copyright holder does not grant permission for the modification; so not libre licensed projects). Screen readers for blind people could be illegal, accessibility extensions for high contrast for those visually impaired could become illegal, even just extensions that change all websites to dark mode like Dark Reader could become illegal. What constitutes modification? Would zooming in on a website become illegal? Would translating a website to a different language become illegal? Where does this end?

This needs to be shot down.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Dystopian, yes

    Also Fascist

    Something we never want to see in German politics in particular

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I don't see a reason to have a preference for a specific geographic region to not be influenced by fascism. Fascism should not be instituted anywhere, in any scenario. Unfortunately, it's on the rise globally, and I'd personally prefer it not be present anywhere at all, not just in an area in which it has had previous influence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago

    New ubo feature: if page does not grant permission to block ads then entire page is blocked.

    When I come across a paywall that is not circumvented by simple script blocking I don't even bother to try anymore and I remove these suggestions from my feed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Also, wouldn't this ban also potentially kill or at the very least cripple FOSS too? And what about browser forks like LibreWolf or Icecat?

    Because I could see this law overriding rights that basically all FOSS licenses grant to modify something as long as that modification, and the source code in general, is still freely available.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    No, copyright holders have the right to provide permission for modification and distribution of their copyrighted material. That includes providing conditions for that permission, such as requiring the derivative to hold the same license (like GPL). This is a case where the copyright holder is not explicitly providing those rights, so it is a completely different scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But ad blockers don't distribute derivative materials.

    It's like saying you can't distribute a stencil to cover up things you don't like to see in a book.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    So far they have just re-opened the case for re-examination, on Springer's behest. Yes, German corpos can sue as well.

    Considering RIAA's takedown of youtube-dl failed so miserably - argued in much the same way as this one - I think this case has little chance of even partial success. (edit: slight correction)

    In any case, it will take years to get results. Until then, nothing changed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    AFAIK, this is unlikely to lead to a ban on ad blockers. Worst case is probably that the judgment will imply some way to deliver ads that is illegal to block.

    In any case, there are exemptions for certain assistive technologies. Those might not be much affected.

  • source
  • parent