But how did the people arguing the case fail to make the obvious analogy to a mute button on a TV or fast-forward on a VCR? It’s the exact same principle. The content creators made a product that includes ads, and mute/fast-forward/ad-blockers remove part of it.
I get that the judges are boomers but how did nobody make that case to them?
They (the courts) are saying that a website is a whole product, and you don’t have the right to alter it. An ad blocker alters it … removing something you would otherwise see.
A TV show is a whole product, and a mute button alters it, removing something you would otherwise hear.
People born before the fax machine was invented shouldn’t be deciding internet rules and regulations
But how did the people arguing the case fail to make the obvious analogy to a mute button on a TV or fast-forward on a VCR? It’s the exact same principle. The content creators made a product that includes ads, and mute/fast-forward/ad-blockers remove part of it.
I get that the judges are boomers but how did nobody make that case to them?
I’m interested to hear how they argued:
https://x.com/jsrailton/status/1958231592968597849
Apparently they defined HTML/CSS as a protected computer program?
Devil's advocate, but a mute button is not analogous because you can already mute your PC or smart device.
Maybe that should be against the law too.
They (the courts) are saying that a website is a whole product, and you don’t have the right to alter it. An ad blocker alters it … removing something you would otherwise see.
A TV show is a whole product, and a mute button alters it, removing something you would otherwise hear.