Advertisers don't own your computer desktop and have no real right to dictate what happens on it --- much to their chagrin.
The most amazing part is that it was even necessary for a court to make this ruling. Anything less would have given advertisers partial ownership rights to your attention span.
This was about them legally forcing others to also do what *they* want --- with private hardware and software and infrastructure that *they* have no logical, legal, moral or ethical claim to.
The sheer arrogance required to even ask for a court ruling is kinda astounding. The ad industry needs to take a step back and reexamine their game plan. All this tact will do is build more incentive and determination to block them.
Windows 10/11 would like a word.
Honestly I think they're going to fight this again because the user's computer is just too valuable to not be able to leverage. We're seeing everything software move toward "as a service" pricing, and not ownership.
> In its lawsuit, Axel Springer cited a 2012 court ruling which found that software for Sony’s Playstation Portable console that changed code in memory to facilitate cheating was infringing. In that case the court found that the temporary modification of the software constituted a revision of the software, something which requires permission from rightsholders.
How can it be against copyright the modify my personal copy of a game? If I cut out the all of the faces of an actor on a VHS tape and replace it with mine, is that copyright infringement? It's my copy.
The contract idea is sound, but it the legitimacy of those restrictions and the bundling of the behavioral clauses with copyright should only be deemed to be valid if a paper document was signed: either with all parties present, or else notarized.
These kinds of restrictions should not be held valid if they are imposed against users who can download the game without signing any actual agreement.
At best, a copyright-based license agreement attached to something that is downloadable by the general public should only be able to impose copyright-based restrictions, like whether redistribution is permitted and in what forms.
Can someone explain what happens when a company as large as this decides to file such a law suit?
Is it such low costs that you might as well just argue whatever you want and see what happens? Or are there internal teams counter arguing to check validity of such law suit?
I guess they do the numbers, see potential loss vs potential gain and place their bets.
Copyright law does not support the idea that you must fetch a copy of a work and look at it.
They already have the answer for the ad industry --- specially developed low cost hardware that forces ads to the purchaser. Aka, the Fire tablet --- cheap little ad spewing machines.
Unless government steps in and breaks them up, Amazon will eventually own most of retail commerce.
It's quite remarkeable that they didn't rule that adblocking is copyright infringement...
