[daurentius523]

" that a third party removed content B" - which is insane, adblock in some browsers is integral part of the browser. By that definition the browser is third party.

Should we ban links, dillo and lynx for not having a concept like js?

Also EVERY browser is NOT 100% compatible with html/js specifications! Should we ban all browsers? What if browser changes behaviour after creation of website?

Let's not skip legal implications which AGPL or GPL browser (ex GNOME Web) would have on supposed 'program' that results of opening the page? Would user of such browser always commit piracy? After all he was not given right to relicense supposed 'code' of the site, or did he when he informed website that he connects from such web browser which server accepted? Or did site broke the license by using engine to produce a result which cannot be distributed?

> HTML = Hypertext Markup Language

> A markup language is a text-encoding system which specifies the structure and formatting of a document

[rickdeckard]

Yes agree, but the case must be made legally, not technically.

Legally these are all limitations the author of the original "work" can agree to accept, but he is still in his rights to not accept other more intentional modifications of his work, like an Adblocker. A computer program (for which this law was written) may also not execute in the same way on all machines it is executed on.

Or: As an Author of a full-color graphic novel I may agree on my work to be printed in black&white and handed out on a specific occasion, but this doesn't waive my right to disagree on my original work being photocopied...

--> I believe the case needs to be made that an article of a website is not a completed "work" in the sense of a compiled application, but something that is provided to the consumer for a range of applications (browser) to interpret and assemble using a range of tools. As the author doesn't provide those tools, he cannot legally dictate in which ways this is turned into a completed work by the consumer.

If the author of that website doesn't want his page to be assembled in certain ways, he is free to provide his own means (app) or restrict access behind a mutual contract.

But the publisher doesn't want this because he doesn't want the friction of a paywall or dedicated app/login, which is fine, but not a burden the legal system should carry for him then...

[daurentius523]

That all hinges on "html is program" - no sane person would agree with that assumption when such legal text were written - source: HTML. You cannot just extend definitions to other things and call it legal.

> limitations

Do you want to read and click thru license agreements before entering website? Do you want to have to use Chrome, Opera or Edge for specific website because 'author' forced you so?

> As the author doesn't provide those tools, he cannot legally dictate in which ways this is turned into a completed work by the consumer.

That is factually incorrect - if we accept 'html is program' then YES 'author' has right to do so.

> I believe the case needs to be made that an article of a website is not a completed "work" in the sense of a compiled application

This won't work because German law would consider it irrelevant in this legal context source: the law in question.

>Yes agree, but the case must be made legally, not technically.

If technical reasoning ends with absurd then it should be legally rejected - reductio ad absurdum.

>If the author of that website doesn't want his page to be assembled in certain ways, he is free to provide his own means (app) or restrict access behind a mutual contract.

The point - the company wants it to be a webpage (be on internet) and does not want legal implications of it being a webpage but does want legal implications of it being an app. You cannot have a cake and it too.

It is document, PERIOD.