back to article Ad-blocking is LEGAL: German court says Ja to browser filters

A Hamburg court today ruled the use of ad blocking is legal following a case brought against Adblock Plus by a group of German publishers. The defendant in the four-month trial was Eyeo GmbH, the company that owns Adblock Plus. The lawsuit claimed the company should not be allowed to block ads on websites owned by the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Adblock Plus is garbage

    The Adblock Plus that allows advertisers to pay to play? The Adblock Plus that is usually the reason why a browser tab is eating up 500+ meg of memory and pegging the CPU? No thanks I will stick with the much leaner, more effective and less ethically challenged solution of Privoxy (even simple host file block lists are better than Adblock Plus)

    1. Joseph Eoff

      Re: Adblock Plus is garbage

      So use Ad Block Edge (https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/adblock-edge/) Same rules and engine, no slimey paid ads.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Adblock Plus is garbage

        Dear AC,

        Been using AdblockPlus for sometime and never seen an ad or had any CPU or memory issues.

        Perhaps I'm just lucky,

        Your fellow AC.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Ole Juul

    It's my computer

    There shouldn't be any doubt about this.

    1. BA
      Stop

      Re: It's my computer

      Too true.

      Ads are displayed on my computer if I want them NOT because they want to send them to me.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's my computer

        Absolutely. My computer, my screen and my bandwidth. Adblock Plus should countersue for theft of bandwidth. That would be amusing.

        1. alain williams Silver badge

          Re: It's my computer

          Adblock Plus should countersue for theft of bandwidth.

          No, it is you & I who should sue for use of bandwidth - unless Adblock plus coordinated some sort of class action.

          I can see the admen trying technological mechanisms to stop me viewing their content unless I viewed ads - but what they don't understand (or refuse to) is what I don't like:

          * ads that start autoplay of video or sound

          * ads that use up a lot of screen space

          * ads that pop up/under

          * ads that download a lot or slow my browser

          * sites that run javascript off random servers/domains that I don't know what they are and suspect are tracking me

          * intrusive ads

          Nice, small, discrete ads I can put up with. Anything else - piss off!

    2. FF22

      Re: It's my computer

      The problem is, it's not your content that you're accessing, and not your server, that provides the resources you're using. That's where the story begins. Not at "it's my computer".

      1. Mike VandeVelde
        Meh

        Re: It's my computer

        It's my computer. It's your server. My computer makes a request to your server. Your server gives my computer a response. After this point you are entirely removed from the equation. My computer will do whatever it likes with the response you give it. If you want it some other way then you are going to have to come up with something different from www, good luck with that!

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: It's my computer

          But watching TV without watching the ads is stealing - according to Ted Turner

          Remember - "If you put the kettle on between programmes, then the terrorists have won".

        2. FF22

          Re: It's my computer

          " My computer will do whatever it likes with the response you give it."

          That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Maybe you should educate yourself about how laws (especially, but not limited to copyright law) and contracts work.

          1. dan1980

            Re: It's my computer

            @FF22

            Nope.

            When I open up my web browser and type in a URL, my browser sends a HTTP request to the server, which replies and sends the files - say a HTML file. My web browser then reads that file and renders it.

            Note that it is MY browser on MY computer that is responsible for actually displaying the page. If I am running IE6 on an XP machine then most sites will display rather differently than they are 'supposed' to display.

            Should that be banned?

            If not, then what is the difference, really? If I use IE6 then some images might not display and some content might be shunted off outside the viewing pane. If one of those images is an advertisement, isn't the effect the same?

            But Adblock also stops the browser from sending requests to certain URLs known to be related to ads, so that advertising images and banners linked into a page aren't retrieved. Is that the problem then?

            If so, what if I have a firewall that blocks all HTTP request unless specifically whitelisted and then I view a website over HTTPS which tries to display ads retrieved from HTTP links? Should that be banned?

            Or javascript, via which many ads are delivered?

            Either I have control over what content gets displated on my PC and how, or I don't. If I do then Adblock must be allowed.

            In the end, a webpage is delivered to a PC as a set of componenets and instructions and it is then up to your browser to follow the instructions and assemble the pieces so the idea that you don't have control over how you follow those instructions is proposterous.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. localzuk Silver badge

            Re: It's my computer

            @FF22 - what have contracts got to do with it? There isn't any contract between a web client and a web server. A contract has to be agreed by both parties before interactions occur. If I go to google.com and receive the HTTP data from them, I can do whatever the heck I want to do with it on my machine, its just data. If I want to, on the fly, swap the background colour I can do. There's no contract or anything stopping me - I didn't agree to one.

            1. Nigel 11

              What they *could* do ...

              A company could become its own ad server, and use something such as server-side inclusion to make the adverts pretty much indistinguishable and inseparable from its own content. So why don't they do this? Well, some of their customers might take umbrage and depart forever. But the real reason is surely that they would then have to accept full legal responsibility for the advertisements they served. They'd no longer be able to claim that the advert came from some other server run by some other company, and that any malware served was therefore not their problem.

              So we get to block ads (and one channel for malware delivery and snooping). They want to have their cake and eat it, and the court has very sensibly said that they can't.

              1. dan1980

                Re: What they *could* do ...

                @Nigel 11

                Absolutely. I actually wrote something similar but cut it to reduce the length.

                A site wishing to ensure ads were delivered could render each page request as an image and then get that to display. Of course, you'd have no animation and links would be hard but hey do have that option.

                In the end, the way HTTP/HTML works allows for all manner of flexibility and dynamic content and links to other bits and bobs like ads and javascript to count page views and so forth. But, it also allows flexibility from the user end.

                Advertisers and 'content' companies would love to turn the web into a controlled broadcast medium. It's not. That's called TV.

                Ad blocking software is a reaction to the explosion of advertisement on the web and the increasing obtrusiveness of it. We get pop-ups that take over our whole screen and the content we want pushed down or across the page by animated ads that take our bandwidth and are a major vector for malware. They are also increasingly gathering our personal information to display more 'relevant' ads.

                Some people will always hate ads and won't stand for any. But, the majority, I feel, understand the realities of economics and would be fine with having ads if they stayed low-key and non-dynamic.

                Instead, many sites simply assign space to Google to display whatever ads Google decided you are most likely to click, based on the personal information it has on you. That is not on, for me at least. These sites are not displaying ads so much as renting out space on their site to a third-party.

                I feel sorry for those sites that are in the 'good' category, so far as advertising goes, but they are unfortunately suffering because of the greed and lack of consideration for site visitors that so many other sites have seemingly adopted as a business model.

                1. big_D Silver badge

                  Re: What they *could* do ...

                  @Dan, There would also be no searching the site for the relevant information, if it was a single image.

                  I agree with you, small, low-key, non-intrusive ads are the only option going forward, or we will get rid of all advertising and the sites will switch to micro-payments or monthly subscriptions... And the whole thing will collapse.

                  We need to find the happy medium, where sites get enough revenue to keep going and visitors don't get so annoyed with the revenue generators, that they stop coming to the site or block the revenue generators and drive the sites off line.

                  1. dan1980

                    Re: What they *could* do ...

                    @big_D

                    Absolutely - my point was that they can either have the flexibility and dynamic nature of the web as it currently exists or choose to abandon that in the pursuit of forcing visitors/consumers to see the site (ads and all) exactly as they want.

                    As long as the user's PC is responsible for requesting the data and the users browser is responsible for rendering it, they will have a fair measure of control over what data is requested and how that is rendered.

                    Just as increasing demand for encryption - and better encryption - has come from the massive, nearly unrestrained spying being done by our governments, so too has an increased demand for ad-blocking come from the massive, nearly unrestrained pushing of advertising by website owners.

                    In the end, people are, largely, reasonable. Or, at least, lazy and thus not necessarily inclines to go to very much effort unless something has gotten out of hand.

                    I very much approve of the situation you advocate for - reasonable, secure, unobtrusive advertising that works for everyone. Unfortunately, it's more likely that if a certain business model stops working, those making money from that model will try to change the environment and laws rather than change their business model.

          3. Mike VandeVelde
            IT Angle

            Re: FF22

            I could get nostalgic for the days of gopher and use lynx to browse the web text only. I could be blind and use a screen reader, or near blind and mess with your precious font sizes, or colour blind and mess with your precious colours. I could be brain damaged and use IE and not see anything the way you planned, or you could be brain damaged and design for IE where my proper browser wouldn't see anything the way you planned. I could be a search engine spider and process the response from your server and never display it on any screen. Finally, I could go through through your server's response rendering it to my screen and when it gets to <img src="http://privacyhah.com/somestupidbullshit.png"> I could say no thank you sorry but I don't feel like fetching that extra file because reasons. Exactly what do you think you could do about *any* of that???

            "That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. Maybe you should educate yourself about how laws (especially, but not limited to copyright law) and contracts work."

            rofl

      2. Tom Maddox Silver badge
        Holmes

        Re: It's my computer

        Then install an Adblock-detector on your site and refuse to serve content to people running Adblock.

        1. Captain DaFt

          Re: It's my computer

          "Then install an Adblock-detector on your site and refuse to serve content to people running Adblock."

          And wonder where everyone went when they switch to one of the hundreds of sites showing similar content to yours without acting like a prick.

          1. Bob Dole (tm)

            Re: It's my computer

            " "Then install an Adblock-detector on your site and refuse to serve content to people running Adblock."

            And wonder where everyone went when they switch to one of the hundreds of sites showing similar content to yours without acting like a prick."

            Well, at least it won't be costing you in CPU cycles or bandwidth. If they weren't willing to watch your ads, maybe you didn't want them as a "customer" anyway.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It's my computer

            And wonder where everyone went when they switch to one of the hundreds of sites showing similar ads and content to yours and with me acting like a righteous prick

            Fixed it for you

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: It's my computer

      It is your computer, but it isn't your content that you are (generally) reading. How much are you paying those websites for their content? Nothing? So why is it unreasonable for them to display a (static) advert?

      I don't run an ad blocker, but I do run NoScript and FlashBlock (well, I disabled Flash in January, so FlashBlock is now irrelevant), so I only get static JPEG ads. If the ad network tries to push a Flash ad or a JavaScript driven ad, I just get a blank space, if the ad network pushes a JPEG, I get the advert.

      I am fine with that. As long as the ads aren't annoying me, I'll let them come through and help sponsor the sites I am visiting, because I generally want to keep coming back. If the site doesn't earn any income, then it might not be there next time I need / want to visit it.

      What I don't agree with is corporate websites and product websites that also have advertising, it is your corporate presence, WTF are you doing showing ads on it?!?!?

  3. frank ly

    Hold on there

    "The lawsuit claimed the company should not be allowed to block ads on websites owned by the plaintiffs: Zeit Online GmbH and Handelsblatt GmbH."

    Adblock Plus doesn't block ads on websites; it blocks ads on user's browser displays. That's why users install it. Anybody who _wants_ to see the ads can still see them if they choose to do so.

    Bearing in mind the first comment, I will have a look at Privoxy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hold on there

      >Bearing in mind the first comment, I will have a look at Privoxy.

      It is so lean that I run it on my main home router which has only 64 meg of memory and a single MIPS core (Netgear jobby with OpenWRT installed). Perfect for adblocking on unrooted phones as all you have to do is point the OS http proxy to your router.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hold on there

      or adblock edge. Unfortunately adblock people now DO run an extortion racket, by letting ads through, at a price. But hey, not my problem, I've moved to other blockers.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: Hold on there

        Or uBlock (now uBlock Origin), now available on FF as well as Chrome:

        https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

  4. Kraggy

    I use AdBlock Plus mainly for the ability to hide elements of pages I don't want to see, such as the pleading banners that somehow defy NoScript to block, Privoxy is my main defense against ads.

    I have to say I find the developer's idea to take money from websites to allow their ads through to be pretty damned hypocritical, unethical and having followed this case I think the web sites who sued had a good case if they'd tried to argue along those lines (and damage to business) rather than their arguing the legality (or otherwise) of blocking.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Joseph Eoff

        Ad Block Edge can use the same script and configuration as Ad Block Plus for blocking individual items on a page.

        I do the same on The Reg with ABE - no over sized pictures for me.

        1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

          <obligatory "please don't use Adblock etc on El Reg because ads pay the bills and bring you the stories you like to read" post>

          If the ads are resource-hogging monstrosities, tell us. We have pulled campaigns before for blatantly taking the piss with giant Flash abortions.

          1. Joseph Eoff

            Sorry, Ad Block remains the only way to read The Reg without having the enormous, space wasting "Hero Pics" at the top of every article.

            Too much waste of screen space.

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Tell You??

            You mean you dont already know!!!!

    2. King Jack

      I use AdBlock Plus mainly for the ability to hide elements of pages

      uBlock does element blocking too and has no pay-to-bypass lists.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Out of control

    The ad proliferation has gotten way out of hand. There are many websites that the minute you hit their homepage you are bombarded by video ads that you cannot mute or terminate without leaving the site. They might fool me once but they won't ever see me again, so they are the losers when it's all said and done.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Out of control

      Wow, noscript hides that really effectively. I don't think I've ever had that problem. Maybe it's the sort of sites you visit....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Out of control

        >>Maybe it's the sort of sites you visit....

        the major US news sites do this. The pr0n sites have the decency to NOT auto start playing.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: Out of control

      The trouble is, people have been saying that any time these 15 years... and yet here we are.

      Experience, which knows more about this subject than you, me and everyone else here put together, says that these tactics do, in fact, work, for values of "work" that translate to "allow some filthy parasite somewhere to eke out a pitiful existence underneath whatever slime-encrusted rock they use to shelter from the searing light of day, when otherwise they might have to get out and actually do something constructive with their lives."

  6. dial033

    Well, there is a part of the lawsuit that the article does not mention. And that is the "Acceptable Ads" thing. The argument was, that Eyeo would allow certain ads as long as the advertiser pays money to Eyeo. And that this would be extortion.

    As there are more similar lawsuits coming along, at least this - IMHO - controversial behaviour might be judged unlawful.

    1. stucs201

      re: And that this would be extortion

      Selling advertising space in the first place is extortion.

      Once upon a time speculatively telling people about things they might want served a purpose. In an age of search engines people can find what they want without having it shoved in their faces by advertisers.

      Yes advertising when your competitor doesn't might make some difference, but the chances are your competitors are doing the same. Market share is likely the same as if neither you or your competitor had an ad campaign, except now costs are higher which in turn means higher prices for your customers - so much for 'free' stuff funded by ads, the only winners are those selling advertising space.

      Unfortunately even though I suspect many companies buying advertising space understand this they can't stop easily, since they need their competitors to stop too. So loads of money, time and energy gets wasted on achieving nothing except lining the pockets of the people selling ad space.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: re: And that this would be extortion

        "advertising when your competitor doesn't might make some difference"

        Indeed. If it's something I want to buy I'll buy it from the competition who isn't pestering me.

      2. Domino

        Re: re: And that this would be extortion

        Search engines are handy if you know or at least suspect that something exists. Adverts are handy to let people know something exists. Two different things, both of which get abused to some degree - the more you value your privacy the larger that degree seems.

      3. Yag

        Re: re: And that this would be extortion

        "Unfortunately even though I suspect many companies buying advertising space understand this they can't stop easily, since they need their competitors to stop too. So loads of money, time and energy gets wasted on achieving nothing except lining the pockets of the people selling ad space."

        Reminds me of an economy course about "game theory". Quite interesting actually...

  7. Crazy Operations Guy

    "allow their ads to pass through its filter software. "

    Simple: uncheck the box "allow unobtrusive ads" on the filter list. Order restored.

  8. FF22

    Except, it did not

    "Ad-blocking is LEGAL: German court says Ja to browser filters"

    Wrong. The German court

    1. did not rule about "ad blocking" per se, but about a specific software (ABP) and it's business model

    2. did not rule about ABP and it's business model in general, but strictly in relation to plaintiff (the case was partly thrown out because plaintiffs couldn't prove that they were actually harmed)

    3. the German law system is not based on precedents, so the ruling is not binding to any other case, currently in progress or possibly brought up in the future, neither in relation to ad blocking in general, nor in relation with the actual ABP software

    So, no, contrary what's been stated in the title and in the article, the ruling does neither mean that ad blocking has been confirmed as legal, not even in Germany. And there are several processes still running against Eyeo, which could still find itself outlawed and bankrupted in any of them.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Except, it did not

      And there are several processes still running against Eyeo, which could still find itself outlawed and bankrupted in any of them.

      Should prove interesting given ABP is GPLv3 open source...

      Although I note that donations/contributions are paid directly to Eyeo rather than a not-for-profit intermediary.

  9. Dr Paul Taylor

    legal arguments?

    We Reg commentards can formulate our own arguments and opinions about this, but it would be interesting to see a synopsis of those that were presented by the complainant and respondent and those that were accepted by the judge.

    1. sabroni Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: legal arguments?

      Yeah, anyone know a good tech news site?

      1. MrDamage Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: legal arguments?

        > "Yeah, anyone know a good tech news site?"

        Slashdot?*

        This advert was brought to you by Dice, also the letters A, G and X, and the number 9.

        Drink Slurm. Its addictive, gooey, and full of sugar. It HAS to be good for you.

        <- Coat. Flameproof, bulletproof, but not Slurm-proof. That stuff is worse than an Alien's blood.

  10. John Deeb

    Shiva

    Are there still people browsing without those blockers???

    Just kidding somewhat, I know I live on a different planet but I personally cannot use the web without protection from additional content purely aimed to district me from the reason I visited in the first place. Or just the idea that a page would load external script and flash from various to me unknown commercial parties -- it would seem a very unsafe idea to surf like that every day! That's just me though. Anyone is free to board any ship and cross any surf how he or she seems fit.

    Ads might have "made" the web in several ways, it's also breaking it, in several ways.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shiva

      "Are there still people browsing without those blockers???"

      I bet MOST users do without, although the message about ad-blockers has spilled out from the fringes - somewhat.

  11. Florida1920
    Happy

    Re: Adblock Plus is garbage

    Keep trying to reply to the first post and getting a 410 error. Never saw that before! I have 10 tabs open in Firefox at present, with AB+ running, and FF is showing a total of 523M of memory. CPU is ticking between 4-13%. Windows 7, FF 37.0.2.

  12. thomas k.

    pay to play

    Nice ads you're serving there, be a shame if no one could see them.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like