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?

1 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 to Bob Deskin Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close