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.
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.