recently, Publishing magnate Axel．Springer (Axel Springer) In targeting AD blocking tools Adblock Plus Developer of Eyeo GmbH Lost a copyright lawsuit.

as "Bild" (Bild) and "Le Monde" (Die Welt) Such as the publisher of newspaper brands, Springer said Eyeo GmbH The AD blocking tool interferes with the display of its website in the browser, So it infringes its copyright. The Hamburg District Court in Germany dismissed the case, Eyeo GmbH win.

Millions of websites rely on advertising to generate revenue to fund their operations. however, For some readers, Excessive or obtrusive advertising needs to be cracked down on, This is often done with ad-blocking tools. One of the most popular ad-blocking tools is Eyeo GmbH developed AdBlock Plus, The tool is available in Firefox, Google, It works on Apple's browser, Can also be used Android and iOS system. It can dramatically reduce the number of ads that users see, But Springer clearly had a hard time accepting it.

Springer claims, AdBlock Plus And its users interfere with its business model, So it took legal action to fight back, To put an end to it. however, After going through the district courts and eventually Germany's highest court,

2018 years 4 month, Adblock Plus and Eyeo GmbH Was found not to have violated competition law. Springer claimed the AD blocking tool infringed copyright after losing the lawsuit, Springer in 2019 A new lawsuit was filed in 2005 on new grounds. This time, The publisher claims AdBlock Plus "Changed the programming code for its website, This allows direct access to legally protected publisher content. " In other words AdBlock Plus Violation of copyright law.

Eyeo GmbH The allegations were immediately rebutted, Call it "Bordering on the absurd" reason, It noted that its browser-side tools did not attempt to modify anything on Springer's servers. In spite of this, Springer is still pursuing legal action, claim AdBlock Plus Interfering with the content the site provides to visitors, This constitutes copyright infringement, There should be an injunction.

Springer compared AD blocking to video game cheating, which Springer cited in its lawsuit 2012 A court ruling in nineteen fifty-one, The ruling found that SONY Playstation The portable game console's software changed the code in its memory to make it easier to cheat, The software infringes the copyright of the game. In the case, Court determination, A temporary change to the software constitutes a modification to the software, This requires permission from the copyright owner.

But in this case, Springer has no claim AdBlock Plus Altered or manipulated any copyrighted work. contrary, Springer said the software interferes with the way copyrighted content appears in the browser. According to the ruling of the Hamburg District Court, That in itself is not enough AdBlock Plus Or its users have infringed copyright.

The court dismissed Springer's suit

in 1 month 14 In a ruling issued on Tuesday, Court determination, Springer had no basis "German copyright law" (UrhG) The first 91 (1) Article obtained injunctive relief, because Eyeo GmbH and AdBlock Plus No unauthorized copy of and／Or modify a copyrighted computer program as defined in the Copyright Act.

The ruling read: "Defendant did not violate plaintiff's rights in the program used to create the web page. Defendants and corresponding users are not complicit in copyright infringement. " The court said, When visiting a web page controlled by Springer, HTML Files and other elements are loaded into the user's main memory, But this was done with the publisher's consent. Visit these pages and use them together AdBlock Plus Users also have the right to store these files, Because when the file is transferred, Implied protocols allow users to do this.

In addition, although AdBlock Plus Changed the structure of the web site in the browser, But the tool doesn't change any code, It just changes the way the code is transferred. Finally, Court determination, AdBlock Plus The execution of a program after it is stored locally on a website does not constitute copyright law "modify" . Only a material change in procedure can be considered an infringement.

The court stated that, If a ruling of infringement would mean "Excessive infringement" Freedom for users to make choices, Includes not loading images to save traffic, Deactivate scripts or block pop-ups or trace elements, etc. In addition, It would also treat translation tools and AIDS for the visually impaired as copyright infringement.

Eyeo GmbH Welcome victory

　Springer continues to appeal Eyeo GmbH Said in a statement issued later, It has consistently defended Internet users, Software developers and publishers, And happy with the ruling, Because it represents a victory for a free and secure Internet. Eyeo GmbH Thiel, chief executive officer of the company．Faida (Till Faida) According to: "The Hamburg District Court set an important precedent in this regard: No company has the right to prohibit users from setting their own browser features. The ruling also provides many companies with the legal certainty they need to continue developing apps designed to improve users' lives. "

Although the case has now been dismissed by the Hamburg District Court, But Springer has already announced it will appeal against the ruling. The appellate court will be the same one that previously ruled against SONY Playstation Hanseatic High District Court where the portable game console software cheating case was decided (Hanseatic Higher Regional Court) .

(Compiled from torrentfreak. com)

Reprinted from China Intellectual Property Network   translation: Wang Dan　proofread: Liu Peng

disclaimer: This website reprint articles are from the Internet, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact this website, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.