Popular ad filtering browser extension Adblock Plus developer Eyeo, Axel Springer by publishing group Copyright announced that he had won a lawsuit against him on the grounds of The case was dismissed by the Hamburg District Court in Germany, with judges saying the program did not violate copyright law.
Axel Springer and eyeo The legal dispute between the two lasted eight years. Springer first filed a lawsuit in the Cologne District Court in 2014. Although the German company initially had partial success, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the appeal.
The good news of termination of the internet speed against the contract with impunity!
According to the new regulation, if the promised internet speed cannot be obtained, the commitment can be canceled without a withdrawal fee.
Copyright lawsuit between Adblock Plus and Axel Springer
While advertising remains one of the main sources of revenue for online media, the dispute clearly involved a lot of material. Therefore, Springer not only asked Eyeo to stop blocking ads on their site, but also claimed extra compensation for all ad searches blocked since 2016.
The first cases were based on competition law. Ad blocker free Although, Eyeo offers paid deals to companies if they want to miss the unobtrusive ads through the filter. This was deemed illegal by Axel Springer’s lawyers as he felt it interfered with the activities of other companies. However, the presiding judges of the Hamburg District Court rejected this claim.
The last case was handled from a different angle. Axel Springer argued that Adblock Plus violated copyright by interfering with the website code. The group’s lawyers, the Hanseatic Higher District Court in 2012 PSP that allows users to obtain unfair advantages for cheat program He narrated the forbidden event.
But the Hamburg court believes there is a fundamental difference between the two cases: Adblock Plus, of course, changes the website code in ways its developers didn’t want. But the changes are not made on the transferred files themselves, but only on the user’s side, that is, in the structure of the screen created in the browser.
judges, of copyright He stressed that its too broad interpretation would also affect other “harmless” browser extensions that work by modifying the HTML code. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), it is already illegal for any technology or consumer to alter the appearance of a website page.