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

Ad blocking is under attack

blog.adguard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#91

Post by pbhjpbhj »

The only way I see DMCA applying here is contributory infringement in enabling modification of the page.

With that in mind I think the question to be answered is does a user/viewer have the right to modify a page in their own web browser or must they view the page as intended by the creators?

You can get in to technicalities then like are Links creators committing contributory infringement, but I'm not sure that's helpful.

Should a user be able to purposefully block parts of a page?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#92

Post by sillysaurus3 »

tyingq wrote: post #20

Just encode the list of urls with htmlentities, base64, rot13, whatever. Then the DMCA can't be used to attack it. Edit: Disagree? Please comment. It's attackable via the DMCA because the word/brand is in the file in it's copyrighted form. If you encode it such that it isn't in that form, it's protected from that approach.

Encrypted IP is still IP.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#93

Post by cft »

It's amazing that they are so uneducated about DMCA. This is called defective DMCA notice, and it should be ignored. The sender of the notice can now file a suit, since the publisher of the list is no longer under safe harbor. But they won't, since they know it is defective. And if they did, it would be thrown out with a summary judgment.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#94

Post by ballenf »

firefoxd wrote: post #55

I use privacy badger, and unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't use a list to block content, it just blocks any 3rd party request that send cookie information. Why are we relying on a list?

That approach might not be enough:

https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95

Edit: the linked issue is regard "instart" which seems to exploit a Chromium flaw that allows it to disguise third-party cookies as first-party, preventing filtering based on that categorization alone.

It seems it's getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#95

Post by lqdc13 »

rnhmjoj wrote: post #57
willglynn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be interested to note the IPFS DMCA policy: https://discuss.ipfs.io/tos#8

This is irrelevant because ipfs.io may act as a proxy but content is stored somewhere on the network and accessible via IPFS.

Still need some proxy for it to be accessible from the internet right?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#96

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

such_a_casual wrote: post #46
CWuestefeld wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

homophobic or not, name-calling does nothing to advance the conversation.

Evidence does. Maybe you should learn the difference between just calling someone a name and providing evidence that their character is shit.

And yet your evidence is glued to the bottom of the discussion because you called him a fag. You've only degraded the conversation.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#98

Post by ubernostrum »

dhimes wrote: post #10

Is it illegal to claim something under DMCA when it does not in fact represent a DMCA claim?

The problem here DMCA is that there is a way to prosecute for a false notice, but it's not the one people want it to be.

Most people hear that DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury and think that means "if there's no reasonable claim of a copyright violation it's perjury". But the part of the notice that's made under penalty of perjury isn't the claim of violation, it's the assertion that the person sending the notice either holds copyright to the work in question or is authorized to act on behalf of the entity that does.

So to nail someone for perjury from a DMCA notice, you have to prove that they don't hold a copyright, or aren't authorized to act on behalf of whoever does hold a copyright, to the work in question. "This isn't a copyright violation" doesn't do it.

Post reply on HN