This is also not an entirely sensible question, as it works the other way around, too: "Wouldn't unauthorized downloading of content, using your ISP, and then deliberately extracting certain parts of it, against the publishers wishes, and for your own benefit, be a federal crime?"

(Note: The question of whether this is copyright infringement, which is the common claim, is separate from the question of whether it may fall under some crime)

It’s been solved in court in the past (and some horrible misdecisions were made, like saying that if no one links to something, it isn’t public), but in general: if you make something available for me, I can ALWAYS for private-only use remix it as much as I want. I can copy my CD collection a thousand times, I can burn a hundred clones of a videogame – for private use.

Which is the case here.

The publisher has no right to expect that users actually see ads. Even with TV, all recording devices since the time of VCR skip recording ads completely. And with live TV, people switch the channel.

No, it actually hasn't, at least not to the degree you think.

For example, the main ruling in favor of your argument, the Hopper ruling, turned on this: "commercial-skipping does not implicate Fox’s copyright interest because Fox owns the copyrights to the television programs, not to the ads aired in the commercial breaks."

Not on some more general right to commercial skipping.

The only thing won on appeal so far is the preliminary injunction. Dish may in fact, still lose :)

Even if they don't, unlike TV shows, publishers will likely be able to claim compilation and collective copyrights on the work as displayed to the user. Plus, it's not time-shifting. Plus you have website terms of use that may bind you.

You may not want this to change the result. It probably changes the result.

"The publisher has no right to expect that users actually see ads. Even with TV, all recording devices since the time of VCR skip recording ads completely. And with live TV, people switch the channel."

This is 100% not the same as what is being described here. Those are time shifting devices. This is not. It is not "fast forwarding" the ads on the computer. People are also not switching to different tabs to avoid the ads. You also have another serious problem in websites: Terms of use. Unlike TV, which doesn't bind you to anything, on the web you can be bound to terms of use (plenty of website terms of use have been held valid and binding, it's usually a mixed question of fact and law). Expecting precedent to come out the same given all this seems .. a dubious line of argumentation. It may, it may not. Acting as if this is a solved question is incredibly premature.

Additionally, the only court in your favor has not ruled that Ad skipping is generally okay, it ruled that Fox can't complain about it because they don't own the copyright rights to the ads".

You do realize this means the ad owners* may be able to complain, right?

Anyway, if you believe otherwise, i'd love to see some case law. (Because the case law i've found doesn't support your argument at all :P)

(Note, since i got a private email about it: I actually don't have strong feelings one way or the other as to whether it should be legal/etc, i'm just trying to express an view as to whether it is)

Anyway, under German law, you can always make a copy or compilation of any product you can use or have a license to use for personal use.

As an adblocker is only personal remixing, it is totally legal - just like ripping a CD, or mixing two songs I downloaded from iTunes.

Additionally, there are personal rights which can not be signed away by a ToS or even a contract, including the right of remixing.

1. encourage users to enable ads on publisher's site

2. register an account with the publisher for free

3. view certain number of ads to unblock publisher's site

4. publishers can also circumvent the ad-blocking

I assume the opt-in would happen in option 2. It's option 4 that I think is illegal.

Also, even if option 4 happened after the opt-in, you may get bound to a TOS or something that allows them to do it, etc.

Note also that all of this may run afoul of various civil codes, of course (it's hard to say, a lot of them are pretty vague, so until someone tries it, it's not easy to say what the actual end result would be)

When you're a grownup, when you agree to pay for a product (again, this scenario is opt in, by contrast to a lot of current content delivery), it's not a crime or unauthorized to enforce your end of the transaction that you agreed to. I never thought I'd have to explain that to someone over the age of ten.

What you're describing is covered by contract law I guess. Contracts can also be trumped by law. E.g., if you reply to this comment and don't click this link for a free iPad, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/innervu/news/win-a-free-ipad , then you owe me $100.

If a site wants to detect an ad blocker and block their own page too, fine. But if they want to circumvent it and silently download whatever resources they want and thwart all countermeasures they encounter, then that's cyber crime IMO.

That is not opting-in. That's the publisher forcing ads on the user without their permission.