This is grounded in the assertion that a website’s HTML/CSS is a protected computer program that an ad blocker intervenes in the in-memory execution structures (DOM, CSSOM, rendering tree), this constituting unlawful reproduction and modification.
This is ridiculous… the in-memory structures are highly browser dependent, the browser is the one controlling how the DOM is represented in memory… it would imply that opening the website AT ALL in a different version of the exact specific one they target or with a different set of specific features/settings would also be a violation, since the memory structure would likely be different too.
At that point, they might as well just ask for their website to not be visited at all.
By that same logic I could claim that SHOWING me an ad by circumventing my ad blocker is interfering with the in memory execution of my ad blocker. Wtf.
This is ridiculous… the in-memory structures are highly browser dependent, the browser is the one controlling how the DOM is represented in memory… it would imply that opening the website AT ALL in a different version of the exact specific one they target or with a different set of specific features/settings would also be a violation, since the memory structure would likely be different too.
At that point, they might as well just ask for their website to not be visited at all.
By that same logic I could claim that SHOWING me an ad by circumventing my ad blocker is interfering with the in memory execution of my ad blocker. Wtf.
or mandate which program can be used to access the page.
like an app.