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, Insightful) by zall on Thursday March 31 2016, @07:39AM
While it does seem like the business model is built around a protection racket, I still think the court win should be considered a favorable outcome. We're not talking about preinstalled software with organizations trying to muscle certain publishers out of the market, but rather user choice to download a specific piece of software to solve a specific problem. The case being won because no contract exists between a user and a website concerning viewing ads in exchange for content seems like a welcome levelheaded decision by the court.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday March 31 2016, @08:09AM
"welcome levelheaded decision"
I may be reading this wrong, but you make it sound that this is unusual. The article points out that this is the 5th time Adblock has been the victor in a German court. Levelheadedness is not as uncommon in EU courts as people (read: Americans) think.
(Score: 1) by zall on Thursday March 31 2016, @09:02AM
As a European myself we can only agree on that ;) I was probably letting my cynicism regarding a lot of technology focused court cases cloud that last sentence. In a market with as much money at stake as in the online ad market, it almost seems like a marvel that big powerful publishers like Axel Springer weren't able to push through their point of view. I'm just pleasantly surprised I think.
My main point is not so much the specific win, but the recognition that using your own computer, downloading software you intended to download, and installing this software – you're actually "allowed" to install and use what you want. In the interest of balance I might've seen how it would be unfair or at least more debatable business practices if for example all computer sold at computer store X came preinstalled with the software.