Why would the status of ad blocking be any different now from when copyright laws were originally framed (which was well before the internet)?
I could always skip ads in, say, magazines and newspapers and just concentrate on the content and I still do. In fact I've become very adroit at it, I can read a mag from cover to cover without being able to recall the content of any ad.
Copyright law was framed in an era when it was just not possible for advertisers to actually interfere and interrupt a reader's train of thought/reading pattern. Of course, their aim was to distract readers' attention but they couldn't force readers to actually read ads.
Nowadays, ads not only regularly interfere with the reading of content but they cause many adverse effects that were not possible in the days of printed material—spying on reader's privacy, slowing page loading (a reader's reading), being vehicles for malware and a rich source of illicit data for sleazy data brokers, etc.
It seems that there's no end to the inventiveness of those who wish to pervert the law. The fact that this matter has got as far as it has in German courts one has to wonder the motives of those in the court system. It would be interesting to see how many within that legal system have shares in ad and data broker companies.
I for one would ignore any such ban. Fact is, I do not use a dedicated ad blocker per se but take other measure such as using blocking lists in combo with blocking JS, etc. and my web browsing experience is essentially ad-free.
If the Law were to deem my actions unlawful then I'd posit that'd be sure evidence of a totalitarian state at work.
Comments
Why would the status of ad blocking be any different now from when copyright laws were originally framed (which was well before the internet)?
I could always skip ads in, say, magazines and newspapers and just concentrate on the content and I still do. In fact I've become very adroit at it, I can read a mag from cover to cover without being able to recall the content of any ad.
Copyright law was framed in an era when it was just not possible for advertisers to actually interfere and interrupt a reader's train of thought/reading pattern. Of course, their aim was to distract readers' attention but they couldn't force readers to actually read ads.
Nowadays, ads not only regularly interfere with the reading of content but they cause many adverse effects that were not possible in the days of printed material—spying on reader's privacy, slowing page loading (a reader's reading), being vehicles for malware and a rich source of illicit data for sleazy data brokers, etc.
It seems that there's no end to the inventiveness of those who wish to pervert the law. The fact that this matter has got as far as it has in German courts one has to wonder the motives of those in the court system. It would be interesting to see how many within that legal system have shares in ad and data broker companies.
I for one would ignore any such ban. Fact is, I do not use a dedicated ad blocker per se but take other measure such as using blocking lists in combo with blocking JS, etc. and my web browsing experience is essentially ad-free.
If the Law were to deem my actions unlawful then I'd posit that'd be sure evidence of a totalitarian state at work.