Mi auguro tanto che qualcuno si svegli e trovi un modo "legale" di
eliminare la pubblicità.
Nonché che qualcuno legiferi che nelle domandine se vuoi i cookies DEVE
comparire il comando "rifiuto (tutto)", vietando quelle pagina te da
scorrere minuziosamente.
Ancor meglio mi auguro che la legge sulla privacy possa bloccare almeno
qualcosa di quanto sopra.
[Sfogo di utente infuriato di quel colabrodo schifezza denominato
"Registro delle opposizioni".]
Il 2025-08-22 08:54 Alberto Cammozzo via nexa ha scritto:
<https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/legal/mozilla-warns-germany-could-soon-declare-ad-blockers-illegal/>
A recent ruling from Germany’s Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has revived
a legal battle over whether browser-based ad blockers infringe
copyright, raising fears about a potential ban of the tools in the
country.
The case stems from online media company Axel Springer’s lawsuit
against Eyeo - the maker of the popular Adblock Plus browser extension.
Axel Springer says that ad blockers threaten its revenue generation
model and frames website execution inside web browsers as a copyright
violation.
This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a
protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the
in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this
constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.
Previously, this claim was rejected by a lower-level court in Hamburg,
but a new ruling by the BGH found the earlier dismissal flawed and
overturned part of the appeal, sending the case back for examination.
Mozilla’s Senior IP & Product Counsel, Daniel Nazer, delivered a
warning last week, noting that due to the underlying technical
background of the legal dispute, the ban could also impact other
browser extensions and hinder users' choices.
“There are many reasons, in addition to ad blocking, that users might
want their browser or a browser extension to alter a webpage,” Nazer
says, explaining that some causes could stem from the need "to improve
accessibility, to evaluate accessibility, or to protect privacy."
As per BGH’s ruling, Springer’s argument needs to be re-examined to
determine if DOM, CSS, and bytecode count as a protected computer
program and whether the ad blocker's modifications are lawful.
“It cannot be excluded that the bytecode, or the code generated from
it, is protected as a computer program, and that the ad blocker,
through modification or modifying reproduction, infringed the exclusive
right thereto,” reads BGH’s statement (automated translation).
While ad blockers haven’t been outlawed, Springer’s case has been
revived now, and there’s a real possibility that things may take a
different turn this time.
Mozilla noted that the new proceedings could take up to a couple of
years to reach a final conclusion. As the core issue is not settled,
there is a future risk of extension developers to be held liable for
financial losses.
Mozilla explains that, in the meantime, the situation could cause a
chilling effect on browser users’ freedom, with browser developers
locking down their apps further, and extension developers limiting the
functionality of their tools to avoid legal troubles.
