Are Adblock companies breaking the law? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#51

Post by DannyBee » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

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

This isn't quite right. It varies, but in general, if you continue to use the site, knowing such a TOS exists, you may be bound by it (you may not, it depends on the terms, etc).

You would get a pass on "the first time you accessed the web site", not "every time you did it afterwards knowing there was a TOS".

This all assumes you noticed it exists. There is another question of "can i be bound by the TOS if i didn't ever know it existed" vs "can i be bound by a TOS if i didn't bother to read and assent to the terms explicitly". The answer to the first is "mostly no" the answer to the second is "mostly yes" (but again, depends on the terms of the TOS).

This is what actual precedent is, anyway ;) The next question that gets asked is basically "what if i just lie and said i never noticed it, what do they have to prove", and the answer is "if you are willing to lie, this is a worthless discussion to have".

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#52

Post by DanBlake » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

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.

It was a local app, not remote. Even if I concende that it was remote, what about a wallhack for counterstrike? Should that be legal since it has zero server effect?

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#53

Post by baddox » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #42

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.

If you want to control your network requests, then don't agree to a contract that gives up such rights.

Sounds good, although I've never agreed to or even seen such a contract, and I don't know anyone who has.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#54

Post by DanBlake » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:29 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #21

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.

And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server. In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binari…

You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system, Its 100% reaction based, like anti virus software.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#55

Post by tajen » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:29 PM UTC

Zikes wrote: post #33

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.

Along with the X-I-DONT-WANT-YOUR-APP-THANKS header ? I'm not actually joking, our protocols could embed many more use-cases than they currently do.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#56

Post by DanBlake » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #23

How would DCMA even apply to something "open" like HTML?

If you write a huge javascript library and started selling it, then someone stole it and released it for free- you would issue a DMCA because you own that code. Just because its HTML doesnt make it 'not free'

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#57

Post by DannyBee » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

So, it's very funny to look at some of the reactions here. For a group of people who seem to also think they would be great at self-study law ;P, most of them are mostly knee-jerk and come out to "i don't think i should be bound by this, so clearly the law says what i think" or "i think this is a bad idea, so clearly, the article is wrong", instead of making arguments based on actual law and precedent, or even something sane.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#58

Post by Zikes » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

vox_mollis wrote: post #48

All this absurd hand-wringing about adblockers would be very easily addressed if content providers would, collectively just offer paid subscription options. Say, a Spotify Premium for the written word. I don't like ads, and I'm willing to pay to not see them. But nobody seems to want to take my money.

The problem with that model is that there are too many competing companies. As it is, you have to subscribe to half a dozen online publications if you don't want to hit a paywall for every other link posted to HN.

But even if there were a single service to manage those subscriptions, I would lament the monopoly.

Honestly, I think ads are the solution, but only if they drop all the anti-consumer BS associated with them.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#59

Post by 212d1d » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

Do you not have to 'accept' the TOS prior to using a Blizzard bot? I am not told to accept (or even view) the Business Insider's TOS prior to use.

IANAL, both it's obvious that parties must agree for a contract to be valid. It can not be implied. I can not hang a mortgage contract on my wall in the bank and bypass the need for individual acceptance.

Re: Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

#60

Post by chrhine » Mon, Nov 23, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #57

So, it's very funny to look at some of the reactions here. For a group of people who seem to also think they would be great at self-study law ;P, most of them are mostly knee-jerk and come out to "i don't think i should be bound by this, so clearly the law says what i think" or "i think this is a bad idea, so clearly, the article is wrong", instead of making arguments based on actual law and precedent, or even someth…

"I don't want it to be illegal, therefore it isn't. That's the way it works."