61–70 of 98 posts
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'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
In this instance, you could have TOS-NA-NC, where NA is "No App" and NC is "No Tracking Cookie".
First, it is not clear if a web "surfer" is in a contractual relationship with a random site s/he visits in a way that a Blizzard gamer is (by the virtue of buying the game and clicking through the TOS). Second, Blizzard game bots use a part of the company's codebase, where the ad blocker works solely in my own browser. They do not rely on proprietary code that belongs to someone else. Finally, where the Blizzard bot…
The thing you would go after would be the adblockers for facilitating breach of contract.
I don't see how you could ever get to "a language then used to break the contract", nor is this a logical argument. Ie if you are using it to try to demonstrate some kind of absurdity, it doesn't work to do that.
Facilitating breach is also not a thing, the closest thing is known as "tortious interference". Pretty much everywhere, it must be knowing and intentional (In the sense that you know it breaches that contract and are aiming it at breaching that contract). There are a small number of jurisdictions that allow negligence claims, but those jurisdictions are crazy.
First, it is not clear if a web "surfer" is in a contractual relationship with a random site s/he visits in a way that a Blizzard gamer is (by the virtue of buying the game and clicking through the TOS). Second, Blizzard game bots use a part of the company's codebase, where the ad blocker works solely in my own browser. They do not rely on proprietary code that belongs to someone else. Finally, where the Blizzard bot…
Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Legally speaking, you either agree to whatever license the website has in place, or you've got no right to view its content. Of course, such a license cannot have provisions that conflict with copyright or contract law and so doctrines like the fair use applies, etc. Of course, you could say that you can't r…
Is there any case law to back that up? That's a very odd reading of copyright law. Would you make the same claim about listening to a radio, viewing a television broadcast, or reading a poster?
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…
First, it is not clear if a web "surfer" is in a contractual relationship with a random site s/he visits in a way that a Blizzard gamer is (by the virtue of buying the game and clicking through the TOS). Second, Blizzard game bots use a part of the company's codebase, where the ad blocker works solely in my own browser. They do not rely on proprietary code that belongs to someone else. Finally, where the Blizzard bot…
Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Legally speaking, you either agree to whatever license the website has in place, or you've got no right to view its content. Of course, such a license cannot have provisions that conflict with copyright or contract law and so doctrines like the fair use applies, etc. Of course, you could say that you can't r…
Except for the fact that it is being purposefully made available to the general public.
There is one important difference with comparing MDY to adblock though. MDY made software specifically for WoW. Adblock does not make software specifically to target Business Insider or anyone else. Further, if this precedent was set, you could possibly go after people using out of date browsers that can't display your ad content perfectly or viewing text only or a million other ways in which ads wouldn't be left in…
Adblocks work by maintaining white/black lists. As such, they inherently are targeting specific URLs.
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 e…
I feel perfectly comfortable browsing HN with my adblocker turned off, but I would want it turned on for 75% of the links I click from here.
Also, the above linked Browse Wrap wikipedia article stresses that precedent for the web site only occurred when the web site prominently and repeatedly displayed or linked to the TOS, especially near sections of the page where the user was actually likely to look (e.g. near the "Checkout" button, rather than buried in the footer).
Additionally they mostly regard actions taken on the web site, such as downloading software or purchasing products. Currently there seems to be very little expectation that the user is bound to a TOS by simply continuing to browse a web site, and I'm curious if there even exists any cases dealing with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.