If Blocking Ads is a Copyright violation...

[Jamie Cox]

If the EU or somebody declares ad block technology to be illegal, then what's next? The logical conclusion of that is that the fast-forward button on your TiVo or your podcast player is also illegal. Their purpose is obviously to skip ads.

 

[cschuber]

Hmm. Makes one wonder if blocking ads is a violation of free speech?

 

[peterblaise]

I've snipped ads from newspapers and magazines, tearing out whole
pages that are just ads front and back.

Banning scissors next, I imagine.

No, no one has a right to harvest our attention, even if their income
depends on it.

Once their data lands in my home, I can do anything I want with it in
my home, including snipping out the parts I want to snip out.

 

[JimB]

Copyright laws.....

"In addition to ideas, facts, and concepts, there are also several other things that are not eligible for copyright protection. Below you’ll find a non-exhaustive list of what copyright law generally does not protect:

Procedures, processes and methods of operation;
Systems;
Principles and discoveries;
......"

There are more but not applicable here. If the method of operation of a browser is changed, that is not a copyright violation. The "process" related to its operation is similarly not copyrightable. The code may be but it's operation is not.

This can be viewed much the same as having a soup production methodology to seal the can that has a copyrightable and protected by intellectual property (IP) laws accruing to the creator (registered) and the end user adds a second can processing lane post sealing to facilitate shipping. There is no copyright or IP infringement for that action as none were violated.

Making up "laws" leads to failure. Germans seem to be adept in this endeavor.

 

[peterblaise]

Copyright laws have no application in-house, where we can do as we
like with any 'copyright' intellectual property that arrives into our own
domain.

Anyway, filtering or not looking at something violates someone else's
copyright ... how, exactly?

There are already websites that decline to present their content if
they 'sniff' ad blockers, so I just use Print Friendly or any other CSS
that prepares for printing, all of which eliminate 'noise' such as
advertisements.

Though recently, Google AI-assisted search summaries have satisfied
me without having to go to the originating sites at all.

And THAT is @Steve Gibson's point - AI is already making
advertising-based web presentations, er, mute.

So let me Google that for us:

Q: Gogle, How would blocking advertising in our web browser be ​

considered a copyright violation?​

​

A: Blocking advertising in a web browser would be a violation of ​

copyright only if the browser modifies or copies the website's ​

copyrighted code, creating a derivative work or infringing on the site ​

owner's exclusive rights. ​

​

While a recent case revived this claim, arguing the website's HTML ​

and associated code are a "website program," the prevailing view, ​

supported by past court rulings, is that ad blockers merely control ​

how a browser processes and displays content, not that they alter ​

the copyrighted HTML code itself. ​

​

Therefore, blocking ads is generally not considered a copyright ​

infringement, but rather a user's right to customize their browsing ​

experience. ​

​

The Argument for Copyright Violation​

​

Some publishers, like Axel Springer, argue that a website's HTML ​

source code, which dictates rendering and data processing, is akin ​

to a "website program". ​

​

They contend that ad blockers alter this code, creating an ​

unauthorized copy or a derivative version of the website, which ​

constitutes a copyright violation. ​

Why the Argument Usually Fails​

Focus on Display, Not Code Alteration:​

Courts have historically found that ad blockers don't change the ​

underlying HTML or copyrighted code of a webpage; they simply ​

influence how the browser interprets and presents that code. ​

User's Control Over Their Device:​

​

Users have a right to control their own computing devices and ​

browsing experiences, including deciding which content they ​

want to see. ​

​

Analogy to Personalization:​

​

Ad blockers are seen as a user's way of personalizing their view of a ​

website, similar to how a user might resize a window or change font ​

sizes.​

​

Legal Precedent​

​

Past Court Rulings:​

​

Courts have previously ruled against the claim that ad blocking ​

constitutes copyright infringement, recognizing the distinction ​

between altering content and changing how it is displayed. ​

​

Current Legal Developments:​

​

While a recent case in Germany has revived the claim, it's a ​

departure from established legal precedent, and many expect it to ​

be overturned.​

Conclusion​

In summary, while some publishers try to frame ad blocking as a ​

copyright violation, the prevailing legal and technical understanding ​

is that ad blockers operate by filtering content during the rendering ​

process, not by copying or modifying the copyrighted code itself. ​

​

Therefore, using an ad blocker is generally not considered ​

copyright infringement.​

 

[PHolder]

Copyright laws have no application in-house, where we can do as we
like with any 'copyright' intellectual property that arrives into our own
domain.

WUT? Copyright means the originator retrains rights about how/if copies are produced and how they're distributed. If you buy, say a book, you can do whatever the heck you like with the atoms, they're yours, but that doesn't give you the right to start making copies of the book to distribute to your friends or co-workers. That would be considered a violation of the author's right to be compensated for copies of their work.

 

[peterblaise]

"... distribute to your friends or co-workers ..."​

​

... is not

"... in-house ... our own domain ..."​

No judge would take a case of suing someone because they played
with the claimant's copyright intellectual property in their own home.

- - - - -

And it's not about compensation.

It's about control.

It is not lawful to copy without permission and sell just because I send
the copyright intellectual property owner a royalty check.

I'd need to get their permission to make and sell copies for public
distribution.

It's up to them what compensation they want in the reproduction
permission deal, if any.

Depending on situations, a copyright intellectual property owner may
be satisfied with control only, and need no compensation, such as
donating to a worthy cause.

- - - - -

Back on the topic:

If Blocking Ads is a Copyright violation...​

​

Let me Google that for us:

Q: Google, What is the ad-blocking copyright case in Germany ​

all about?​

​

A: The ad-blocking copyright case in Germany revolves around ​

German publisher Axel Springer SE's claim that ad blockers like ​

Adblock Plus violate copyright by modifying the browser's ​

interpretation of website code (DOM/CSSOM), thus altering a ​

copyrighted computer program. ​

​

While a lower court dismissed this argument, Germany's Federal ​

Court of Justice (BGH) has overturned parts of that decision, ​

sending the case back for further review to determine if such ​

modifications constitute copyright infringement under German law. ​

​

The Core Argument: ​

Publisher's Perspective:​

Axel Springer argues that the HTML and CSS of its websites are ​

protected by copyright and qualify as computer programs. ​

When an ad blocker modifies the in-memory structures of the ​

website (DOM/CSSOM), it is seen as an unlawful reproduction or ​

modification of these programs.​

Ad Blockers' Function:​

Ad blockers work by altering the browser's rendering of web pages, ​

which includes hiding advertisements.​

​

Case History:​

​

1. Initial Legal Battle (2015 onwards):​

The dispute began with Springer's attempt to ban ad blockers for ​

harming their business model, but this was initially unsuccessful, ​

as the German Federal Court of Justice ruled in 2018 that ad ​

blocking was legal.​

2. Shift to Copyright Law (Later):​

Springer then shifted its strategy, arguing that ad blocking infringes ​

copyright.​

3. Lower Court Ruling (2022):​

The Hamburg Regional Court dismissed Springer's copyright claims. ​

4. BGH Overturn (2025):​

In August 2025, Germany's Federal Court of Justice (BGH) partially ​

overturned the lower court's ruling, finding the previous dismissal ​

flawed and sending the case back for further factual examination. ​

Why it Matters:​

Impact on User Rights: ​

A ruling in favor of Springer could significantly threaten user ​

freedom, privacy, and the ability to customize online experiences. ​

Broader Implications for Browser Extensions:​

The case's outcome could set a precedent for other browser ​

extensions that modify web pages for various reasons (e.g., ​

privacy, accessibility, appearance), potentially leading to legal ​

pressure and restrictions on their functionality. ​

The Open Internet:​

Critics fear that a ban on ad blockers could shift the internet from ​

an open, user-driven experience toward one with more restrictions ​

and less flexibility. ​

​

So, as mentioned prior, the prevailing winds seem to say:

"... While a recent case in Germany has revived the claim, it's a ​

departure from established legal precedent, and many expect it to ​

be overturned ... In summary, while some publishers try to frame ​

ad blocking as a copyright violation, the prevailing legal and ​

technical understanding is that ad blockers operate by filtering ​

content during the rendering process, not by copying or modifying ​

the copyrighted code itself. Therefore, using an ad blocker is ​

generally not considered copyright infringement ..."​

​

We'll see what the judges say.

Courts - judges - are often uninformed and whimsical, and often wrong.

Thanks.

 

[JimB]

A lot of these ads are videos. There is nothing that specifies how quickly these videos must play. A browser that plays video ads in the background at high speed and never presents them to the primary display cannot be accused of "blocking" as the ad did play. It's the equivalent of not watching the ad while it plays.

 

[BradHouser]

I predict that if this happens, ad blockers will act like they are presenting the ad to the website, but hide it from the user. How would they know If I saw it or not?

 

[peterblaise]

Plus, ads often come from OTHER sites than the intended site the user
'thought' they were visiting.

Like going to the library and having the movie theater DEMAND you
watch a movie while you are at the library.

Hence DNS Nameserver resolver filters to block even going there.

No analogy is perfect, but @Steve summed it up in suggesting that,
no, no onn has a right to force us to witness their marketing.

 

[BradHouser]

Why do adblockers reveal themselves? Couldn't they "pretend" to display the ad as far as the website is concerned, and then paint a blank rectangle where the ad would have been? You still would have to download the content, so they would not know it is being blanked. Just sayin'.

 

[peterblaise]

Ad blockers don't necessarily 'reveal' themselves.

However, websites can 'test' to see if something of their's 'landed' or
not, and presume a filter got in the way if their test fails.

Let me Google that for us:

Q: Google, How do websites know a browser uses an adblocker?​

​

A: Websites detect adblockers by looking for what isn't loading or ​

functioning as expected, using methods like checking if known ad ​

scripts or ad-serving domains were successfully loaded, or by ​

verifying that elements intended for ads are still in their default ​

size. ​

​

A common technique is to insert a hidden or invisible element ​

designed to be blocked by an adblocker and then check its size ​

after the page has loaded; if the element's size is 0x0, it indicates ​

the adblocker successfully blocked it. [1, 2, 3, 4] ​

​

Here are the primary ways websites detect adblockers: ​

​

• Monitoring Network Requests: Websites can analyze the network ​

requests made by a browser. ​

​

If these requests are made to known ad servers but are blocked or ​

not completed, the site can infer that an adblocker is in use. [2, 3] ​

​

• Checking for Missing Content: Adblockers work by preventing ads ​

from loading. ​

​

Websites can detect this by trying to load specific content, such as ​

JavaScript files or images, that are known to be ads or contain ad ​

code. ​

​

If the content fails to load, it suggests an adblocker is active. [1, 2, 5, ​

6] ​

​

• "Bait" Elements and Script Execution: Developers often place a ​

hidden or inconspicuous element on the page - sometimes called a ​

"bait" element - that is meant to be blocked by an adblocker. ​

​

A script then checks if this element was successfully loaded. [3, 4, 7] ​

​

• For example, a small, invisible element might be created in the ​

HTML. ​

​

If an adblocker blocks it, the element will have a size of 0x0, which ​

the script can detect. [4] ​

​

• Ad Server Domains: If a website's script tries to connect to a specific ​

advertising server but cannot, the site can assume that you are ​

running an adblocker, as most are programmed to block these ​

domains. [3, 8] ​

​

• Ad Container Size: Websites can measure the size of an ad container. ​

​

If this container is expected to be a certain size (e.g., 200px x 200px), ​

but the ad hasn't loaded, the container will be smaller or empty, ​

signaling an adblocker. [9] ​

​

• Tracking Protection Features: Some browsers, like Firefox, have ​

built-in tracking protection features, often enabled in private ​

browsing mode, that can trigger notifications when ads are not ​

loading. [10] ​

​

This process is often a cat-and-mouse game, as adblocker developers ​

constantly update their filters to bypass new detection methods, and ​

websites continuously find new ways to detect them. [1, 11] ​

​

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/technology/personaltech/websites-blocking-ad-blockers.html
[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-website-know-that-I-use-Adblock-Adblock-is-a-local-tool-and-it-is-impossible-to-notify-remote-websites
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pelat/eli5_how_do_websites_know_when_i_have_adblock/
[4] https://www.quora.com/How-do-some-websites-detect-AdBlock-and-refuse-to-load
[5] https://www.quora.com/How-can-sites-tell-if-youre-using-adblock
[6] https://www.geelark.com/glossary/ad-blocker-detection/
[7] https://www.quora.com/How-do-websites-know-I-am-using-an-adblocker?no_redirect=1
[8] https://www.quora.com/Why-can-websites-like-Hulu-detect-when-I-have-an-ad-blocker-and-ask-that-I-disable-it-but-not-just-play-the-ad-instead
[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k4ojf9/eli5how_adblock_detector_work/
[10] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1121662
[11] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bgipdq/eli5_how_do_websites_know_when_you_are_using_an/

 

[BradHouser]

Ad blockers don't necessarily 'reveal' themselves.

However, websites can 'test' to see if something of their's 'landed' or
not, and presume a filter got in the way if their test fails.

Let me Google that for us:

Q: Google, How do websites know a browser uses an adblocker?​

​

A: Websites detect adblockers by looking for what isn't loading or ​

functioning as expected, using methods like checking if known ad ​

scripts or ad-serving domains were successfully loaded, or by ​

verifying that elements intended for ads are still in their default ​

size. ​

​

A common technique is to insert a hidden or invisible element ​

designed to be blocked by an adblocker and then check its size ​

after the page has loaded; if the element's size is 0x0, it indicates ​

the adblocker successfully blocked it. [1, 2, 3, 4] ​

​

Here are the primary ways websites detect adblockers: ​

​

• Monitoring Network Requests: Websites can analyze the network ​

requests made by a browser. ​

​

If these requests are made to known ad servers but are blocked or ​

not completed, the site can infer that an adblocker is in use. [2, 3] ​

​

• Checking for Missing Content: Adblockers work by preventing ads ​

from loading. ​

​

Websites can detect this by trying to load specific content, such as ​

JavaScript files or images, that are known to be ads or contain ad ​

code. ​

​

If the content fails to load, it suggests an adblocker is active. [1, 2, 5, ​

6] ​

​

• "Bait" Elements and Script Execution: Developers often place a ​

hidden or inconspicuous element on the page - sometimes called a ​

"bait" element - that is meant to be blocked by an adblocker. ​

​

A script then checks if this element was successfully loaded. [3, 4, 7] ​

​

• For example, a small, invisible element might be created in the ​

HTML. ​

​

If an adblocker blocks it, the element will have a size of 0x0, which ​

the script can detect. [4] ​

​

• Ad Server Domains: If a website's script tries to connect to a specific ​

advertising server but cannot, the site can assume that you are ​

running an adblocker, as most are programmed to block these ​

domains. [3, 8] ​

​

• Ad Container Size: Websites can measure the size of an ad container. ​

​

If this container is expected to be a certain size (e.g., 200px x 200px), ​

but the ad hasn't loaded, the container will be smaller or empty, ​

signaling an adblocker. [9] ​

​

• Tracking Protection Features: Some browsers, like Firefox, have ​

built-in tracking protection features, often enabled in private ​

browsing mode, that can trigger notifications when ads are not ​

loading. [10] ​

​

This process is often a cat-and-mouse game, as adblocker developers ​

constantly update their filters to bypass new detection methods, and ​

websites continuously find new ways to detect them. [1, 11] ​

​

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/technology/personaltech/websites-blocking-ad-blockers.html
[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-website-know-that-I-use-Adblock-Adblock-is-a-local-tool-and-it-is-impossible-to-notify-remote-websites
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pelat/eli5_how_do_websites_know_when_i_have_adblock/
[4] https://www.quora.com/How-do-some-websites-detect-AdBlock-and-refuse-to-load
[5] https://www.quora.com/How-can-sites-tell-if-youre-using-adblock
[6] https://www.geelark.com/glossary/ad-blocker-detection/
[7] https://www.quora.com/How-do-websites-know-I-am-using-an-adblocker?no_redirect=1
[8] https://www.quora.com/Why-can-websites-like-Hulu-detect-when-I-have-an-ad-blocker-and-ask-that-I-disable-it-but-not-just-play-the-ad-instead
[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k4ojf9/eli5how_adblock_detector_work/
[10] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1121662
[11] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bgipdq/eli5_how_do_websites_know_when_you_are_using_an/

All useful information. I am sure smarter minds than mine have looked at different ways to fool the website. It may be difficult, but my prediction is that one day, someone will figure out a way to "silently redact" portions of the page presented to the user. It won't save any bandwidth, but it will be blank.

 

[peterblaise]

The 'fight' goes on to remember what we do in our own home is
sacrosanct.

Translators, screen readers, none of those are as originally
'programmed', and some owners of intellectual property want
additional royalties for additional 'performances' such as my original
Kindle that reads EPUBs aloud to me while I read and the pages
automatically turn to match the voice, and now PCs and smart
phones can do the same.

It's not the intellectual property owner's jurisdiction in my own home.

I can and will do what I please with anything that arrives in my own
home.

Any supposed restrictions would be unenforceable.

Only a fool, or politician, would make a law that cannot be enforced.

"You cannot read this book aloud to your child without paying
additional performance royalties".

Oh yeah, enforce that.

"You cannot ad lib any new lines or omit any existing lines while
reading".

It's as if SOME intellectual property owners can't adapt and evolve
with technology.

Actually, it's as if some lawyers are afraid of being redundant, so
they drum up paid work for themselves, consumers and proprietors
be damned.

In the end, it really does not matter how this case turns out.

We're gonna filter the crap that is thrown at us over the Internet
one way or another, just as we can tear an advertising page out of a
newspaper or magazine, just as we toss spam in our mailboxes in
real life and in our email inbox..

Get used to it, advertisers, get over it.

 

[Rog7]

If the EU or somebody declares ad block technology to be illegal, then what's next? The logical conclusion of that is that the fast-forward button on your TiVo or your podcast player is also illegal. Their purpose is obviously to skip ads.

I have Humax T2000 PVR (circa 2015) and frequently skip forwards (2min per click) to miss the ads.

A friend of mine had a similar recorder but changed it for a later model a couple of years ago. He tells me this model doesn't allow skipping the ads!

 

[a viewer]

Have 4 levels of ad blockers and they still get through. Have nextdns blocking them, then the router blocks most, the unifi controller blocks them again, to finally my browser blocking them. And after all that I still get some. It is disheartening to see the unifi logs, and see how many ads it claims to have blocked. So more than a copyright infringement, this seems to be a full blown up battle against the barrage users are subjected. Maybe we can sue them back for mental suffering and anguish because of the abuse they inflict upon us, besides theft of bw. Not to mention that they open us to attacks from malware

 

[peterblaise]

5th level of ad filtering:

https://www.printfriendly.com/