German court restricts operation of ad blockers at Blocktoberfest event
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has partially overturned a long-standing decision in a copyright dispute between publisher Axel Springer SE and Adblock Plus maker Eyeo GmbH. The ruling reopens the debate about whether using ad blocking software could potentially violate copyright law in Germany.
In a 11-year-old case, the BGH has ruled that the appeals court erred in determining that the use of ad blocking software does not infringe on a copyright holder's exclusive right to modify a computer program. The court indicated that ad blockers might unlawfully interfere with copyright-protected elements of websites, specifically browser-generated data structures like the Document Object Model (DOM) and CSS Object Model (CSSOM), which could qualify as protected computer-program components under German law (§69a UrhG).
However, the BGH emphasized that the lower courts did not sufficiently analyze whether these elements are copyright-protected or if ad blockers' modifications constitute unauthorized adaptations or reproductions under §69c UrhG, leaving these questions open for further factual inquiry.
Philipp-Christian Thomale, senior legal counsel for Axel Springer, celebrated the ruling, arguing that it will better equip software providers to defend against manipulation by third-party software. The appellate court that initially heard and rejected that argument will now have to revisit the matter, potentially adding several years to a case that Eyeo believed was settled seven years ago.
The potential ban or severe restrictions on ad blockers in Germany could limit user choice to block ads and adversely affect online privacy protections. Experts and privacy advocates warn that such a precedent could threaten broader user freedoms beyond ad blocking, potentially affecting other browser extensions that enhance privacy, security, or accessibility. This could undermine users' control over unwanted content and reduce their ability to protect personal data online.
Mozilla senior IP & product counsel Daniel Nazer expressed concern that if the German courts ultimately uphold the copyright claim, it could hinder user choice on the internet. In a blog post, he sincerely hoped that Germany does not become the second jurisdiction (after China) to ban ad blockers.
It is important to note that Eyeo generates revenue from ads through its Acceptable Ads program, while non-commercial open source projects like uBlock Origin rely on community support. The final decision remains undecided, and the dispute is referred back to the Hamburg Higher Regional Court for detailed fact-finding and legal analysis.
This development is significant within copyright and digital rights domains, given the popularity of ad blockers and their role in internet user experience and privacy control. The ruling's outcome could have far-reaching implications for user choice, privacy, and the internet as a whole.
- The ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) could potentially influence the future of open source software, as it questions the legality of ad blockers that modify copyright-protected elements of websites.
- As the debate continues, Cloud-based technologies containing AI software might be at risk, as they often utilize browser extensions for privacy and security enhancement, similar to ad blockers.
- The legal proceedings between Axel Springer SE and Eyeo GmbH have underscored the importance of user privacy and security in an increasingly digital world, highlighting the need for transparent copyright laws.
- This reopened case could set a controversial precedent that goes beyond ad blockers, potentially restricting mobile technology users' ability to control their online privacy and security, and limiting user choice on the internet.
