Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

harknesslabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#31

Post by Zikes »

zecg wrote: post #26
Zikes wrote: post #3

Website terms of service are not viewable until you have already accessed the web site. Unless the web sites give users an interstitial page wherein they explicitly click a button to agree to the terms of service before proceeding, then they would otherwise fall under Browse Wrap[1], for which most existing legal precedence favors the consumer rather than the web site. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap

I use ublock origin to hide the wrapper and the cookie agreement, I never click I agree.

I'm fairly certain that knowingly circumventing a TOS agreement doesn't make you immune to it.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#32

Post by oh_sigh »

nv-vn wrote: post #12
blainesch wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running the code.

I don't think so. The code of the bot is interfering with the actions of a remote server. An ad blocker works locally.

Ad blocking is interfering with the actions of a remote server, for example by blocking the expected transmission of tracking and analytic data.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#33

Post by Zikes »

Zikes wrote: post #11

Can we make a "User TOS" standard wherein a link to a user's personal Terms of Service is embedded in, say, a "User-TOS" GET header, which could include terms implying that by continuing to serve content to the user the web site accepts the user's terms? Preferably the TOS would include verbiage to continue blocking ads, to forbid the use of tracking cookies, and other such pro-consumer terms.

I just realized I just proposed a more complicated version of "Do Not Track", for all the good that did.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#34

Post by bad_user »

Raed667 wrote: post #2

Easy, one argument response: The user should be in control of the code executed on his computer.

That's an emotional response IMHO. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the outcome of this is predictable.

For applications and games it is illegal to circumvent DRM protections meant to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution in the EU. In the USA it's also illegal, although jail-breaking general-purpose computing devices is legal since 2015.

In general usage of software is covered by EULA terms that are not negotiable and enforced by copyright law. If you don't like the EULA, then you can choose to not use the software in question. Of course an EULA cannot override copyright or contract law. Plus many companies claim that software licensing is not a sale, hence the first-sale doctrine does not apply. The EULA for Microsoft Windows famously says that Windows is licensed and not sold. But overall, in order to use a piece of software you have to respect both the EULA it is distributed under and copyright law. Because without that EULA there's nothing giving you the right to use said software, because the copyright law says so.

In other words, while you may be justified in saying that the user should choose what to run on his computer, modifying an app or a web interface to load just what you want and discard anything else is probably copyright infringement. And even if it's not, though I doubt it, then this can be solved with a simple piece of code that blocks browsers with ad-blockers, in which case blocking such pieces of code from running is definitely illegal.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#35

Post by ultramancool »

baddox wrote: post #7

If it's illegal for me to choose which network requests my computer makes and/or accepts, or illegal for someone to create software to help me do that, I think that law is ludicrous and I want it to be changed.

I've been saying the same since the WoWGlider case - they basically just made a program to give users full control over software running on their own computers. Sure, control which violated a license, but can you really write a license to take control over something someone else owns outright? If they loaned you the computer, they might have an argument, but if you own it, it seems insane.

It is ludicrous that you can't control execution on your own CPU without their permission or even simply peek and poke a byte in your own RAM... I own my hardware and I exert my rights to it every chance I get, but I break the law often in doing so. Whether it's flipping a bit to bypass that anti-VM protection, play a game with 3rd party mods needed to make it work on modern hardware or use the full capabilities of the phone I own outright. These things are all blatantly against copyright law in one or many ways, yet I engage in them daily.

Ludicrous may actually be a generous way to put it.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#37

Post by adrusi »

Zikes wrote: post #31
zecg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use ublock origin to hide the wrapper and the cookie agreement, I never click I agree.

I'm fairly certain that knowingly circumventing a TOS agreement doesn't make you immune to it.

If your bank sends you a credit card contract and you don't sign it but their broken system lets you use their service anyway, are you liable for the terms of that contract?

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#38

Post by spinlock »

anowlcalledjosh wrote: post #29
trebor wrote: post #4

Just a moment, is the argument stating that an implicit contract (that is, the Terms of Service) which I was not required to accept to browse the website, can make using an Ad Blocker illegal? What about: malware distributed through ad networks, offensive advertisements (the original reason I installed an ad blocker!), and so many advertisements that a midrange spec'd machine staggers when scrolling or navigating?

By browsing the website, the argument is that you implicitly accepted the ToS. It's legally shaky, and generally the ToS or a link to them must have been provably shown to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap

How far can you take that? Can a spammer put up a TOS claiming that by accessing their site you are agreeing to host their botnet?

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#39

Post by jbob2000 »

Zikes wrote: post #31
zecg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use ublock origin to hide the wrapper and the cookie agreement, I never click I agree.

I'm fairly certain that knowingly circumventing a TOS agreement doesn't make you immune to it.

He doesn't know that he has circumvented it, it is never shown to him.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#40

Post by michaelbuckbee »

zombees wrote: post #22
seanalltogether wrote: post #8

But the WoW bot was interacting with Blizzards servers and sending changeable actions that could affect the state of their servers. It feels like there's much more to this then a simple TOS.

More important is that it's designed to interact with blizzards servers. Adblock is a generic utility

Different Adblockers work in different ways, some block based on size/shape of images (IAB standards) but the most prevalent method is regex'd URL identification to known ad+tracking sites.
Post reply on HN