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) 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.. ;-)