you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You say, just as news breaks that the top German court has over turned a decision that declared "AD blocking isn't piracy"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Unauthorized access into a computer system and “Piracy” are two very different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Please instruct me on how I go to the timeline where the legal system always makes decisions based on logic, reasoning, evidence and fairness and not...the opposite...of all those things

    You have a lot of trust placed in the courts to actually do the right thing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I’m not saying courts couldn’t pass a new law saying whatever they want. But the laws we have today would not allow for ad blocking to be considered unauthorized access. Not under the CFAA as mentioned.

    I said “The logic would not extend to that” not that a legal system could not act illogically.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The original comment reply to you was all about how the legal system would act, that's the primary concern. All it would take is a Trump loyalist judge, a Trump leaning appeals court and the right-wing Supreme Court and boom suddenly the CFAA covers a whole lot more than what was "logical"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The original comment reply to me was all about how the legal system would act in the context of the CFAA specifically. And in that context that logic does not follow. Theres not much latitude for any judge to interpret the CFAA that way.

    They could always push through some new law however.

  • source
  • parent