Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday April 22 2015, @12:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the take-back-the-internet dept.

During an outbreak of common sense in a Hamburg, Germany, court it was ruled that.. no, advertisers don't get their own way every time.

Zeit Online GmbH and Handelsblatt GmbH as representatives of the advertising world filed suit against Eyeo GmbH (the owners of AdBlock Plus) claiming that the latter should not be allowed to distribute software (a browser plugin that blocks ads) that disrupts their income stream.

The court did not look favourably on the advertisers' case.

From an article in The Register :

Ben Williams, a director of Eyeo, wrote in a blog: "The Hamburg court decision is an important one, because it sets a precedent that may help us avoid additional lawsuits and expenses defending what we feel is an obvious consumer right: giving people the ability to control their own screens by letting them block annoying ads and protect their privacy."

This has ramifications for another simmering case in neighboring France.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:08AM

    by Marand (1081) on Thursday April 23 2015, @08:08AM (#174221) Journal

    Probably so; I was using your comment as a starting point, rather than attempt to refute anything said. The gist of my view is that, for better or worse, internet advertising is different than what's come before it because it expects more control (running executable code, requiring attention, etc.) and uses widespread surveillance for data gathering in ways that surpass even government espionage of previous decades. The increased demands and pervasiveness of online advertisers require either greater compensation (which we don't get) or greater resistance (NoScript, adblock, cookie stuff, etc.)

    If online advertising were more like the offline forms -- passive, primarily visual, and largely non-tracking -- there would be much less pushback against them, but you can't put the genie back in its bottle. There's no way advertisers will quit doing any of it now, even if people push for regulations against the worst of it.

    Not that that's likely to happen, so the only alternative is "war" against them, trying to block ads and trackers and effectively disappear, not out of a sense of greed -- I'm not opposed to ads themselves, as they sometimes introduce me to things I find useful -- but out of a desire to maintain my privacy and control of my own property.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:54PM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday April 23 2015, @01:54PM (#174292) Homepage
    I've never considered AdBlock/NoScript/not-even-installing-a-flash-player/rejecting-3rd-party-cookies/ "war". I've simply built a fence, and they can't get over it. I'm determined to remain the master of my domain.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:47PM

      by Marand (1081) on Thursday April 23 2015, @10:47PM (#174467) Journal

      I generally see it the same way you do. However, we may not think of it as war but the advertisers clearly do. This lawsuit and article wouldn't exist if they didn't.