> The decision notes that this is not just about “changing variable data in the memory of a computer, but rather changing code created by the bytecode of the website ‘computer program’ as a form of expression of the website programming itself.”

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.

▲

sgc 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Next there will be AI overseers to monitor whether you flip past the ads too quickly while reading a magazine.

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.

▲

rickdeckard 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

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...

▲

zeta0134 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It may be substantially simpler to acknowledge that there is no binding contract involved between me and the supplier of content B. Were this some sort of purchase or legal arrangement that I had consented to in some way, then the content provider would have a much stronger case.

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.

	▲	rickdeckard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Agree, but the publisher of content A is also the supplier of content B. They are sourced differently on delivery but they are legally delivered as a single piece of "original work" (as this is a law for PC-software, all included libraries in some app are also part of the "original work") Maybe a case can be made that the work is not shipped in entirety but needs to be assembled at the consumer...?

▲

nobody9999 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>I believe a case needs to be made that content B is not part of the original work provided.

>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."

	▲	rickdeckard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> 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." 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...

▲

sidewndr46 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Interestingly, if I use a 'browser' like wget I've basically transformed that computer program into what amounts to a non-program. Wget doesn't even have the facilities to run that Javascript. So it is possible that using wget in Germany is illegal?

	▲	rickdeckard 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I guess legally at some point you have to either execute or "decompile" that non-program, and the same violation would apply if you remove the ads ("violation of its exclusive right of modification"). 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...
	▲	xigoi 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Given that someone was sued for opening the developer tools on a website, using wget would presumably constitute a death sentence.