if ad blocking infringes on copyright then every premium service from streaming companies that is ad-free is illegal.
I do not consent to ads.
That’s fine, they’ll just withhold the content, then.
Please do.
I’m glad to not watch content that is enshittified by ads… or is enshittified by poor development.
If they actually did that they’d go out of business really fast. They have to fight against your right to block ads instead.
Let it stand. If ads are an integral part of the work and its message, let’s make the website owners fully legally responsible for the content of every single ad they display. If any ad contains malware or is a scam let’s throw the C-suite in jail for it.
That would solve most of the issues with ads really fast.
Malware and scams aren’t the only problem with ads, the real problem is much more to the essence of what an ad is, which is trying to manipulate you into buying a product, giving up the product of your labour for something you often don’t even need, without your consent.
I agree. Ads are just completely scummy. If I am interested in buying something, I will research and decide for myself what I want to buy by looking at marketing material, specs, etc. The only thing ads are good for is making you subconsciously more likely to think of mc Donalds over bk when deciding where to stop for food, and that kind of subtle manipulation should be illegal. Sorry for ranting about something you seem to agree with me on, but a little circle jerking is nice every now and then.
Data gathering too
I agree that the vast majority of ads are manipulative, but are there not legitimate uses in notification? Like posters annoucing an event, requests for scientific trials, or even lost posters.
Advertising / public relations is the science to reprogram human minds to do what you want. The technology is improving. So I see advertising as one of the great evils in our civilization which we aren’t even able to discuss because every news or social media runs off of ads. It limits what content is produced by changing what content is profitable for the advertiser.
Sure there are legitimate uses to spread information - but that is not the same as “advertising”. And it’s also not true that we couldn’t differentiate between the two.
Seeing Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerfucker and Satya Nadella sweating bullets for all the scam spam ads they gleefully allow would be so fucking worth it!
Fucking creeps…
Small sites would disappear, big sites would continue as before. Laws barely apply to the rich.
Death to IP. Full stop.
So now copyright infringement is both consuming media and refusing to consume media, based on the arbitrary intent of the copyright holder?
Also if, according to this lawsuit, it’s illegal to be “meddling with the appearance of the publisher’s website in users’ browsers”, then wouldn’t that make it illegal for Netflix to drop to a lower resolution when bandwidth gets low? After all, if the publisher gives them a 4K source file and Netflix drops it to 720p, isn’t that meddling with the appearance in user’s browsers?
Yes, but we live in a tiered justice system. If YOU want to block ads it’s “wrong”. If a corporation wants to censor or block something it’s “freedom”.
Drink verification can.
I can do whatever I want with my copy.
Copyright is about distribution.
I’m going to infringe copyright so hard.
LoL that seems same legal topic as moding games, which we know game publishers can not do anything against, if the mod is delivered without the binary and it does not circumvent DRM stuff
So… is a coffee stain a copyright infringement? Kinda seems like it would be, by this logic. Hell, if they keep at it for long enough we’ll see them going after somebody over a bookmark or a cracked screen. Just more asinine “IP” bullshit.
