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

271–280 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#271

Post by jasonlotito »

walterstucco wrote: post #244
sbarre wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you understand the comment you replied to? The DMCA is not just about direct copyright infringement, but also about preventing the circumvention of technological protections for copyrighted content. No one is saying there was copyright infringement here. You can think that this is super bogus (I sure do) but make sure you understand the nature of what you're mad about. ;-)

Blocking a domain does not circumvent any copyrighted content distribution It's like saying that turning off TV block the distribution of GOT hence is a tool to circumvent HBO copyright

The mechanism in place here is that the domain provides code that sites use to will block content if the visitor is using an ad blocker. The argument being made is that by preventing this code from running by blocking the domain, the site thinks you should have access when in reality, they don't want to serve the content up to you.

As for your TV comparison, the better comparison is probably with satellite TVs, where you are just decoding signals being sent to you anyways, and if they don't want you watching those signals, they shouldn't send them to you. It's not the same, but it's far closer than your comparison.

Note, I'm not backing either side with this post. Only explaining the argument so you have a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, but understanding the rational is important.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#272

Post by Hoshea »

vinylkey wrote: post #145
anilgulecha wrote: post #32

It was admiral that did this: https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-... They even clearly state they used the only tool available to them, DCMA. From all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in easylist. A domain can be trademarked. This should be added back in. And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then well, easylist and all other developers should be giving…

So, in that blog post, they state: "We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit." Their request is here: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562... And was made by this account: https://github.com/dmcahelper So, they made a github account the same day they made the "request" with an account that in no way indicates where the request is coming from? The github p…

It may not be a bad idea to report this user via GitHub's "block or report" feature when viewing that account: https://github.com/dmcahelper

That type of behavior can only be bad for open source software. Threats like "to minimize file and repository impacts" are going to push more folks toward private repositories if they don't understand that it's not an actual authority pressing them into making changes on a given platform.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#273

Post by tyingq »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #171
tyingq wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I'm getting at. The DMCA complaint should have been rejected. It wasn't because the people filtering the incoming requests are using a simple high pass filter of "is this text on this page". So, if you encode the data, you remove the ability to use the DMCA inappropriately.

There are two aspects to your question which are tangled together. 1. Can IP be encoded as a way of dodging the DMCA? a: no. 2. Will encoding the source material allow you to dodge DMCA trolls? I think the answer is again no. The tradeoff in complexity isn't worth the marginal gains. Imagine not being able to browse the code on github, for example, since it's encoded. A better response is to fight. If the DMCA has be…

I don't consider a url to be IP.

So the encoding isn't skirting anything.

It is just removing an easy, incorrect loophole. They are getting away with the DMCA complaint filing because most providers will allow them if you can find the "matching infringing text" on the page, without further justification.

Encoding it forces the DMCA filer to more comprehensively explain what is being violated. Basically it just raises the bar to a point where frivilous complaints can't clear it.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#274

Post by legulere »

colept wrote: post #206

I have a very unpopular opinion that pulls me in two directions. Advertisements have exceeded the point of being a nuisance for many years. But adblocking is a fight that solves symptoms and will affect more than just advertising in a negative way. The best parallel I can draw is to the Napster era when pirating music cut off the head of the chicken in the industry. Hollywood and like were refusing to adjust to digit…

Advertising has crossed that line much earlier: at the beginning of the 20th when advertising stopped being based on facts and started being about emotions.

Current advertising is immoral because it is trying to shut down our rational thinking to drive us into consumerism that is destroying the world. This goes even against the basics of the free market idea.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#275

Post by acdjuiamadfn »

Gracana wrote: post #247
jxramos wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if folks could get sneaky and change the design from a literal url to a regular expression tailored to single out that url but would also include additional sites that are just gibberish and could be relaxed if useful sites ever do fall into the URL overlap. This might be a new line of research to craft regExs to filter out a specific string while also throwing out a bunch of sister gibberish strings that wo…

I'd rather just go a level up... You don't want users to tamper with your ads? Ok, we'll block your entire site. No tampering.

I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads, firms may finally listen and stop using those ads

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#276

Post by basseq »

alkonaut wrote: post #116
richardknop wrote: post #4

There has been a growing trend of websites that will ask me to either: a) whitelist their site in my adblocker b) or subscribe to their monthly subscription and keep reading their site with adblocker

I think it's fair game to say "Our newspaper pays for quality journalists to do quality journalism, please consider subscribing or not using an adblocker on our site". I prefer this to the WaPo model of paywalling or having a limited number of articles. I do object to the Bloomberg model though, where they say "We notice you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the performance and content on Bloomberg.c…

I agree it's fair game. But I think that message needs to recognize why I blocked those ads in the first place. It's not because "I don't like ads" or "I don't want to support you". It because the ads you were showing sucked: they bogged down my computer and they were malicious.

I would very likely unblock a site if they spoke to that. "We've taken numerous steps in the last 3 months to increase your privacy and eliminate bad, bloated, malicious, and frankly user-unfriendly advertising. We value and will not abuse your trust in allowing us to share advertising with you."

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#277

Post by lightbyte »

augustus0 wrote: post #209
mnarayan01 wrote: post #19

Via https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0... by one of the Easylist maintainers: > If it is a Circumvention/Adblock-Warning adhost, it should be removed from Easylist even without the need for a DMCA request. Anyone know why he's saying this? Edit: I guess he's referring to the following via https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adblock-guide-for-site-a... : > Anti-Adblock should only be challeng…

I didn't realize that anti-adblock lists were generally maintained separately, and this comment tipped me off to it. If you're using something like uBlock, it might be worth going into Settings -> 3rd-party filters. There's a few lists in there which are not enabled by default that are curated to work around anti-adblocking technologies. For example, "Adblock Warning Removal List".

If you're going into uBlock's settings, don't forget to add the domain this whole this is referring to (functionalclam.com) to your custom block filters.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#279

Post by buzer »

pfg wrote: post #48
romanovcode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as code is hosted in U.S. (GitHub) the cat and mouse game will continue. If you host your repo in some other country that does not care about U.S. DMCA then it should be fine.

Other countries have copyright laws too. Most of these laws have some kind of notice-followed-by-takedown protocol, and my understanding is that in many jurisdictions, a DMCA takedown notice qualifies as such a notice. Probably the only major difference would be the amount of effort the infringed party would have to go through to enforce the takedown notice if the infringing party is non-compliant. Disclaimer: IANAL.

> and my understanding is that in many jurisdictions, a DMCA takedown notice qualifies as such a notice.

It sounds a bit weird that a notice that has legal ramifications and is written in non-official language of the country would be legally binding. Or would American judges accept DMCA notice that was written in Spanish (I was considering using something like Comorian, but that's probably a bit too different case)?

Post reply on HN