The publishers argue that Brave’s advertising-replacement plan would constitute copyright infringement, a violation of the publishers' terms of use, unfair competition, unauthorized access to their sites, and a breach of contract. With Brave, publishers get around 55% of revenues: 15% go to Brave, 15% go to the partner that serves the ads, and 10% to 15% goes back to the user, who can choose to make bitcoin donations to their favorite publishers in order to get an ad-free experience on their websites, Eich told Business Insider in January.īut the 17 newspaper-publishing companies that cosigned the cease and desist letter sent to Eich on Thursday say that this business model is "blatantly illegal" because they claim Brave is profiting from the "$5 billion" a year the industry spends on funding journalism. Yesterday the media companies sent a letter to Brave, calling its browser illegal and describing the business model as copyright infringement. The revenue generated by the ads is then split between the web publisher, Brave, and users, with the final group getting paid in Bitcoin. This browser blocks adverts and replaces them with less-toxic ads sourced through a trusted ad network. Users have been blocking adverts in web browsers since long before Apple made content-filtering a core feature in iOS 9 last year, and there are even web browsers which offer ad-blocking as a built-in feature, but Brave takes the idea one step further.
No fewer that seventeen web publishers, including the Washington Post, Gannett, and the Tribune company, have signed off on a letter which calls the browser’s built-in ad-blocking features ”blatantly illegal.” Brave put itself on a collision course with web publishers when it announced its ad-filtering web browser in January, so it should come as no surprise that a bevy of media companies have responded to last week’s launch with legal threats.
0 kommentar(er)
