Adblock Plus is legal

Spiegel.Online-800x534.jpg

The three-judge panel found for Eyeo on every point, however. The judges took note of the fact that Spiegel could have done something about ad-blockers. For instance, it could have shut ad-blocking users out from the Web content, linked advertising directly to the website’s HTML, or used a kind of anti-anti-advertising software that spoofs ad-blockers.

Spiegel said those options “would not be a long-term solution but rather result in a sustained race to stay ahead of the technological curve.” Still, the judges said the newspaper’s decision not to use them meant it wasn’t clear that the Spiegel website was a “unified offer” that had to be taken or left as a whole… More at ars technica.

Makes sense, but can someone explain to me how websites are supposed to make money when subscription services are not covering the costs?

One thought on “Adblock Plus is legal

  1. Ad blockers came along because too many web sites were misusing ads with popups and popovers and other annoying things. I use an ad blocker because there were just too many annoying sites, but when asked to disable it, I do if I know that the site is reliable. I also disable it for the sites I regularly visit. Just as the website owner should be responsible in their use of ads, so should the website visitor be responsible in their use of ad blockers.

Leave a Reply