Debate Surrounding the Contentious Nature of Ad Blockers
In the digital age, the conflict between the interests of media companies and the rights of internet users has come to a head. At the centre of this debate is the use of ad blockers, specifically the Adblock Plus software developed by Eyeo GmbH, and the legal dispute between the software provider and a major German publisher, Axel Springer.
Axel Springer, known for its online publications such as Bild Online, has long opposed the use of ad blockers on its sites. The publisher argues that ad blockers like Adblock Plus violate copyright law by interfering with the display of their online content alongside advertisements, thereby undermining their revenue model based on ad-supported content.
However, Eyeo CEO Frank Einecke maintains that the case is not about a legal dispute between a publisher and the ad filter provider, but about users' fundamental rights to use the internet freely and without barriers. The company believes no company should have the right to prohibit users from setting their own browser settings or forcing downloads of content or tracking.
This dispute has led to legal proceedings, with the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) in Germany ruling partially in favour of Axel Springer, sending the case back to a lower court to reconsider whether and to what extent ad blockers like Adblock Plus are admissible under copyright law.
The Adblock Plus software works by analysing the source code of a website and identifying elements that represent ads, which it then removes to improve the browsing experience. It also operates an "Acceptable Ads" program, permitting certain less intrusive ads, though major advertisers may pay fees for their ads to be whitelisted.
In a significant development, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in October that cheat software does not fundamentally infringe copyright as long as it only temporarily alters data in the console's memory and does not aim to copy the program. This ruling could have implications for the Adblock Plus case, as it suggests that altering a program's functionality, such as blocking ads, may not necessarily constitute a copyright infringement.
Springer's lawyer Thomale interprets the ECJ ruling as establishing that an author is infringed upon by unauthorized reproduction, translation, modification, or alteration of the code form of a computer program. However, the BGH must take the ECJ's legal opinion into account in the Adblock Plus case.
Springer argues that ad blockers unlawfully intervene in the constitutionally protected offer of media companies. The publisher claims that ad blockers damage a central financial foundation of journalism and endanger long-term open access to opinion-forming information on the internet. They also argue that digital advertising revenues, alongside digital subscriptions, are an important pillar for enabling independent journalism to be profitable in the future.
Eyeo, on the other hand, maintains that the ECJ's ruling makes it clear that the alteration of functionalities of a computer program by the user does not constitute a copyright infringement. The company believes that the decision will ultimately uphold the rights of internet users to control their online experience and protect their privacy.
The decision of the BGH is currently pending, and they are waiting for a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Adblock Plus case. The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the fundamental conflict on the internet regarding ad blockers and the rights of media companies.
The European Court of Justice's ruling on cheat software may potentially influence the Adblock Plus case, as it indicates that altering a program's functionality, such as blocking ads, might not necessarily infringe copyright. Springer's argument that ad blockers unlawfully intervene in the constitutionally protected offer of media companies is contrasted by Eyeo's belief that the ECJ's decision will reinforce internet users' rights to control their online experience and protect their privacy.
