• Sophienomenal@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is truly dystopian. A ruling in Springer’s favor here could imply that modifying anything on a webpage, even without distribution, would constitute a copyright violation (EDIT: only for material in which the copyright holder does not grant permission for the modification; so not libre licensed projects). Screen readers for blind people could be illegal, accessibility extensions for high contrast for those visually impaired could become illegal, even just extensions that change all websites to dark mode like Dark Reader could become illegal. What constitutes modification? Would zooming in on a website become illegal? Would translating a website to a different language become illegal? Where does this end?

    This needs to be shot down.

    • Delusion6903@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      New ubo feature: if page does not grant permission to block ads then entire page is blocked.

      When I come across a paywall that is not circumvented by simple script blocking I don’t even bother to try anymore and I remove these suggestions from my feed.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Wouldn’t it make browsers illegal? They’re modifying the html code in order to present a webpage that is useful to the end user.

      • Sophienomenal@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I don’t see a reason to have a preference for a specific geographic region to not be influenced by fascism. Fascism should not be instituted anywhere, in any scenario. Unfortunately, it’s on the rise globally, and I’d personally prefer it not be present anywhere at all, not just in an area in which it has had previous influence.