This is a concern:
> In its lawsuit, Axel Springer cited a 2012 court ruling which found that software for Sony’s Playstation Portable console that changed code in memory to facilitate cheating was infringing. In that case the court found that the temporary modification of the software constituted a revision of the software, something which requires permission from rightsholders.
How can it be against copyright the modify my personal copy of a game? If I cut out the all of the faces of an actor on a VHS tape and replace it with mine, is that copyright infringement? It's my copy.
I have very little knowledge of how legal systems work.
Can someone explain what happens when a company as large as this decides to file such a law suit?
Is it such low costs that you might as well just argue whatever you want and see what happens? Or are there internal teams counter arguing to check validity of such law suit?
Adblocking hyper-confirms to copyright: you don't download the ad, therefore you're not copying, using or redistributing it.
Copyright law does not support the idea that you must fetch a copy of a work and look at it.
To give some context: The court Hamburg is the equvalent of filing your claims in the Eastern District of Texas.
It's quite remarkeable that they didn't rule that adblocking is copyright infringement...
Good to hear, what I find more inserting was the case the plaintiff referenced. The fact a court ruled modifying code in memory is copyright infringement is sad.
Bottom line: You own your computer and you pay for your communication bandwidth and what is allowed to make use of it is entirely your decision.
Advertisers don't own your computer desktop and have no real right to dictate what happens on it --- much to their chagrin.
The most amazing part is that it was even necessary for a court to make this ruling. Anything less would have given advertisers partial ownership rights to your attention span.