In that case we should also outlaw anti malware.
I think Adblock plus has a bad defense because they themselves benefit from ads, so it can be argued that they are just stealing revenue. uBlock origin might have had a better case, because ads are not part of the copyright holder’s code and are also not something the user agreed to when downloading the website. I don’t think you can blanket agree to ads.
Say randomly some ad shows you CSAM for whatever reason. Are you now a sex offender? Do you not have the right to remove it promptly from your computer?
I’m sure that if you sue the copyright holder for showing you CSAM, they will quickly tell the court that they have no relationship with the advertiser and that the user was explicitly informed via TOS that any interaction with 3rd parties are ruled by their TOS.
So if you show me content that you aren’t liable for, in parts of your software that you do not control, I sure as hell retain the right to remove it, like any other malware.
Finally, ad blockers are tools, and it is the user that should be sued since Eyeo is not changing anything anywhere. Should we now sue gun maker for building tools that kill?
Terms of service are not above law, so they could be held accountable for CSAM. You can put random crap into your TOS, doesn't mean it would hold in court.
True, but it shows their intent was to distance themselves from any ownership or responsibility, so they should not be allowed to claim ad blockers infringe you your right to block those ads.
Comments
YANAL
In that case we should also outlaw anti malware. I think Adblock plus has a bad defense because they themselves benefit from ads, so it can be argued that they are just stealing revenue. uBlock origin might have had a better case, because ads are not part of the copyright holder’s code and are also not something the user agreed to when downloading the website. I don’t think you can blanket agree to ads. Say randomly some ad shows you CSAM for whatever reason. Are you now a sex offender? Do you not have the right to remove it promptly from your computer? I’m sure that if you sue the copyright holder for showing you CSAM, they will quickly tell the court that they have no relationship with the advertiser and that the user was explicitly informed via TOS that any interaction with 3rd parties are ruled by their TOS. So if you show me content that you aren’t liable for, in parts of your software that you do not control, I sure as hell retain the right to remove it, like any other malware. Finally, ad blockers are tools, and it is the user that should be sued since Eyeo is not changing anything anywhere. Should we now sue gun maker for building tools that kill?
Terms of service are not above law, so they could be held accountable for CSAM. You can put random crap into your TOS, doesn't mean it would hold in court.
True, but it shows their intent was to distance themselves from any ownership or responsibility, so they should not be allowed to claim ad blockers infringe you your right to block those ads.