• jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Let it stand. If ads are an integral part of the work and its message, let’s make the website owners fully legally responsible for the content of every single ad they display. If any ad contains malware or is a scam let’s throw the C-suite in jail for it.

    That would solve most of the issues with ads really fast.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      4 months ago

      Seeing Sundar Pichai, Mark Zuckerfucker and Satya Nadella sweating bullets for all the scam spam ads they gleefully allow would be so fucking worth it!

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      Small sites would disappear, big sites would continue as before. Laws barely apply to the rich.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Please do.

        I’m glad to not watch content that is enshittified by ads… or is enshittified by poor development.

      • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        If they actually did that they’d go out of business really fast. They have to fight against your right to block ads instead.

  • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    4 months ago

    So now copyright infringement is both consuming media and refusing to consume media, based on the arbitrary intent of the copyright holder?

    Also if, according to this lawsuit, it’s illegal to be “meddling with the appearance of the publisher’s website in users’ browsers”, then wouldn’t that make it illegal for Netflix to drop to a lower resolution when bandwidth gets low? After all, if the publisher gives them a 4K source file and Netflix drops it to 720p, isn’t that meddling with the appearance in user’s browsers?

  • KeriKitty (They(/It))@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    4 months ago

    So… is a coffee stain a copyright infringement? Kinda seems like it would be, by this logic. Hell, if they keep at it for long enough we’ll see them going after somebody over a bookmark or a cracked screen. Just more asinine “IP” bullshit.

  • Petter1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    4 months ago

    LoL that seems same legal topic as moding games, which we know game publishers can not do anything against, if the mod is delivered without the binary and it does not circumvent DRM stuff

      • Petter1@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        It is only an issue if something adds copyright protected material, but not if it changes something copyright protected by removing stuff or even by adding stuff that is not copyright protected.

  • katy ✨
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 months ago

    if ad blocking infringes on copyright then every premium service from streaming companies that is ad-free is illegal.

  • SweetMylk@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    I want to see them win, just to see springer sites getting blocked everywhere, cause if you cannot download it there is no chance of infringement.