SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The owners of Adblock Plus have prevailed in a German court yet again. A Munich court ruled that Adblock Plus's "acceptable ads" program was legal:
Adblock Plus has won another legal challenge in Germany against a daily newspaper which claimed its "acceptable ads" policy broke the law. The Süddeutsche Zeitung argued that Adblock Plus's German owner Eyeo GmbH should not be allowed to block ads while also offering a "whitelisting" service to advertisers.
Adblock Plus operates a whitelisting policy, whereby advertisers can apply to have their ads unblocked as long as they adhere to its "acceptable ads" policy, which does not allow the display of ads it deems intrusive. However, big corporations such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Taboola have paid AdBlock Plus to allow their ads to pass through its filter software. The outfit said the ruling was its fifth court battle in Germany, this one against the paper.
From The Guardian:
It is the last of a tranche of legal cases brought by German newspaper publishers and broadcasters against the company behind Adblock Plus, Eyeo. Germany's largest newspaper publisher Axel Springer, business title Handelsblatt and broadcaster RTL Interactive are among that have unsuccessfully challenged the legality of the software.
Adblock Plus spokesperson Ben Williams said the ruling showed the court viewed adblocking as a challenge and opportunity rather than a threat. "Look, we don't want to pile on publishers here," he wrote. We know that the transition from print to online is still a huge challenge. But we view adblocking much like the court: as an opportunity, or a challenge, to innovate." However, the ruling is unlikely to mark the end of legal challenges to Eyeo, and the case could go to appeal.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by anubi on Thursday March 31 2016, @04:44AM
Ok.. if someone runs AdBlock on the idea that AdBlock has certified the ad as "safe", will AdBlock be accountable for any malware served up by an ad they cleared?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday March 31 2016, @05:20AM
No one said the allowed/permitted ads were *safe*. They only ensure they are "not intrusive".
Serving malware from a remote server might be fine. So long as it was "not intrusive" (and the required fee had been paid)
Anyone found a way to add get a copy of the whitelist, so you can add it to your block list manually? Would allow me to go back to ABP.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Informative) by cykros on Thursday March 31 2016, @05:34AM
Unless I'm mistaken, that's a bit more than you need to do. Just go into Adblock Plus's "Filter Preferences" and untick the checkbox that says "Allow some unintrusive advertising. There is, however an option there to "View List" and "Read More". While I'm not a huge fan of it being opt-out, the case is to be made that it'd get nowhere being opt in, and they have been, at least I'd thought, up front enough about it. Sounds like it's still news to some users of it though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday March 31 2016, @05:46AM
Okay
My main reason for moving away from ABP was the sell-out nature of the "whitelisting for money"
If it smells like a protection racket, and looks like a protection racket...
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday April 01 2016, @01:16AM
Exactly. I ran ABP because I didn't want advertisers abusing me with offensive ads (all of them are offensive as they are unethical) and forcing me to run external scripts notorious for occasionally having malware in them. It was so I could have a sane and enjoyable experience on websites.
I *didn't* run ABP because I wanted an adblocker as effective as a colander to hold water, or that the developer could extort money from other advertisers (he became one himself). Text book corruption at work here.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday March 31 2016, @05:41AM
In my case, being served hostile ads was what started my interest in ad-blocking in the first place.
If they won't vouch for the ad, and just serve those who paid them a bounty, I feel they have no purpose to exist. They are just extortionists who are draining the resources of businesses.
They are then of no more use than a food-inspector who passes faulty food for a bribe.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday March 31 2016, @05:57AM
They are then of no more use than a food-inspector who passes faulty food for a bribe.
Good analogy. I'm officially stealing that.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday March 31 2016, @07:36AM
"Acceptable ads" is more like a food inspector that disapproves dangerous food but passes the bad tasting for a fee.
Anyway, it feels like some impossible mission because publishers must get money somehow and the way to get it is through (acceptable) ads. If there's no ads then there will be very few publishers and those that remain will demand an all-or-nothing pay up situation. Or move to some slime domains like FaceTrackoop.com where you have to sacrifice your first born to read the news.
The situation now is essentially one where the eye balls of the less technical people pays by flooding their attention and thoughts.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday March 31 2016, @08:17AM
I have ad blockers running, yet many ads still come through. They are posted as images and the host's site. They look just like any other content. Most of them are clickable, so if they arouse interest, they provide a link to the offeror. I have yet to hear many people objecting to them. Nor making any effort to block them.
I am not against that ad on the wall at the bus stop where they sell ad space to support building the bus stops. If it started squirting water, strobing, and blaring, I would make a point of disabling the damned thing.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday March 31 2016, @04:22PM
We are already on the verge of IRL flickering spam. With TV monitors using flickering video and annoying audio placed in public where you have to stay around due to travel, shopping for food etc. Same tactics is used in telephone queues.
So the mad axe swing spree on electronic equipment is perhaps not that far away.. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday March 31 2016, @05:54AM
Serving malware from a remote server might be fine. So long as it was "not intrusive"
Wait, how can maiware NOT be intrusive? Its malware. It intruded, that's what it does
.
I'm sort of with the OP here, once these Adware guys bless an ad its their ad, as much as the advertiser's.
Basically, I've switched to Ublock Origin, and turned all of the ads off. I've been on the internet since the Pleistocene, and I've paid enough in bandwidth charges, slowdowns, drive by downloads and viruses delivered by ads. I paid my dues. I'm tired of them, and its time they support me for a while.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday March 31 2016, @06:30AM
I wonder how restaurant guests would take it if a restaurant served up a little "treat" during a meal, and sometimes instead of it being a wrapped chocolate candy, occasionally it was a wrapped dog turd.
( I used the term "wrapped" because one can't see what he got until he opened it )
How could one rationally justify forcing people to accept them? Especially if they all looked alike and ingesting the wrong one would make you so ill you needed to see a doctor?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday March 31 2016, @07:39AM
Restaurants requires payment of the user unlike free news.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 01 2016, @09:03AM
So if someone offers free beer, it's OK if he adds poison to some of the beers?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Friday April 01 2016, @09:29AM
Rather: If someone offers free beer, does it have taste good?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday April 01 2016, @12:05PM
No, malware is not bad taste. Malware is poison.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Friday April 01 2016, @06:50PM
Correct. But did Adblock knowingly let that through?
(Score: 1) by anubi on Saturday April 02 2016, @04:09AM
If someone offers free beer ( that he gets from someone else ), and its poison, then is he responsible?
Especially if he was being paid for getting people to drink the beer?
You can't tell the beer is poison until you drink it... neither can you tell if a script is harmless until you run it.
( I loved that beer analogy. Thanks! )
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2016, @08:23AM
Some ads are malware, but not all malware is intrusive. Here's hoping Adblock Plus keeps out the intrusive malware.