German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
1–10 of 273 posts
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#2Some interesting facts from the article
> As of August 2015, Adblock Plus was installed on approximately 9.55 million browsers with German IP addresses. That's about five percent of the computers in Germany used to access the Internet.
> About 3,500 websites are on the Adblock Plus "whitelisting" program that allows for "acceptable ads" to be viewed by default. About 90 percent of those sites don't pay, but the largest 10 percent make payments to Adblock Plus for the white-listing.
> While Adblock Plus users can easily turn off even those "acceptable ads," about 75 percent accept the default settings and allow the ads. Eyeo determines what is an "acceptable ad." It bars all moving images and many types of still images, allowing mostly for just static text ads.
I prefer something like ublock that doesn't ask money to let ads through. I'm puzzled by the morality of that.
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#3I'm interested in eventual Google's reaction to ad-blocking software. Will they try to weld ads to web technologies or they'll accept the current situation?
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#4Some interesting facts from the article > As of August 2015, Adblock Plus was installed on approximately 9.55 million browsers with German IP addresses. That's about five percent of the computers in Germany used to access the Internet. > About 3,500 websites are on the Adblock Plus "whitelisting" program that allows for "acceptable ads" to be viewed by default. About 90 percent of those sites don't pay, but the large…
I prefer something like ublock as well, but I wouldn't call what AB+ is doing a morally ambiguous question. I think this is actually pretty straight forward all around. I can install or uninstall software on my computer. Websites can serve ads. Websites can block me from viewing their site if I have an ad blocker installed. AB+ can whitelist sites. A website can or can not pay AB+ to be whitelisted.
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#5Any other verdict would be a potential legal risk to Google and everyone else in the ad business for the following reason: if Google can force its users to see ads, this basically means that they are not providing a free service any more, but that Google and the user engage in an exchange: Google provides the search service, and the user agrees to look at a few ads in return. Legally speaking, this could be seen as barter trade and result in two taxable events: Google selling the search service to the user, and the user selling some of his attention to Google. The consequence of this interpretation would be that Google would have to pay VAT on ad revenue in the country where the ad was seen. Also, receiving these "not-free-any-more" services could be classified as income for the user. This sounds absurd at first sight, but you should not underestimate the creativity of desperate tax authorities.
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#6Some interesting facts from the article > As of August 2015, Adblock Plus was installed on approximately 9.55 million browsers with German IP addresses. That's about five percent of the computers in Germany used to access the Internet. > About 3,500 websites are on the Adblock Plus "whitelisting" program that allows for "acceptable ads" to be viewed by default. About 90 percent of those sites don't pay, but the large…
>I prefer something like ublock that doesn't ask money to let ads through. I'm puzzled by the morality of that.
Adblock Plus has a really weird business model. Basically anyone can write an ad blocker, and they all use basically the same lists of rules anyway. So why would an entire company with 74 employees (https://eyeo.com/team) exist just to make an Adblocker? By adding a bunch of shady stuff on top to make money.
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#7I'm interested in eventual Google's reaction to ad-blocking software. Will they try to weld ads to web technologies or they'll accept the current situation?
I guess they'll just raise inconvenience to block the ads higher and higher, just like they did on Android phones, where Chrome did not have any extensions and apps serve ads that cannot be blocked without you getting root access to your phone (which is another inconvenience) and editing your hosts file or something like that.
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#8Some interesting facts from the article > As of August 2015, Adblock Plus was installed on approximately 9.55 million browsers with German IP addresses. That's about five percent of the computers in Germany used to access the Internet. > About 3,500 websites are on the Adblock Plus "whitelisting" program that allows for "acceptable ads" to be viewed by default. About 90 percent of those sites don't pay, but the large…
I prefer something like ublock as well, but I wouldn't call what AB+ is doing a morally ambiguous question. I think this is actually pretty straight forward all around. I can install or uninstall software on my computer. Websites can serve ads. Websites can block me from viewing their site if I have an ad blocker installed. AB+ can whitelist sites. A website can or can not pay AB+ to be whitelisted.
What you described isn't complex logic, it makes sense, but that's not where the moral ambiguity enters. Abp is basically a cop that allows some criminals to slip through as long as they pay on the side... that's the moral issue.
Granting access for paying members simply means ABP has become a gatekeeper with its own power and it is now offering access at a price, unethically
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#9Any other verdict would be a potential legal risk to Google and everyone else in the ad business for the following reason: if Google can force its users to see ads, this basically means that they are not providing a free service any more, but that Google and the user engage in an exchange: Google provides the search service, and the user agrees to look at a few ads in return. Legally speaking, this could be seen as b…
Using that logic, by Google forcing users to provide data and not allow anonymous access, they're bartering services for data.
Re: German judges explain their decision that ad-blocking software is legal
#10Am I missing something? If Der Spiegal doesn't want people to view their content while using an ad-blocker can't they detect and block those users (assuming those users also allow JS)?