291–300 of 598 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Encrypted IP is still IP.
Encoded, not encrypted. I can't be violating a copyright with text that can't possibly create brand confusion, etc. The DMCA complaint is patently invalid in this case. A counter notice would almost certainly eventually succeed, it's just a lot of work and potential spend in legal. Encoding it is just removing the ability to use it inappropriately in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I can tell, the DMCA does apply (sort of) Admiral seems to be a paywall server basically. If blocking their domain gave access to paywalled content, then the DMCA seems to apply http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-cont... However, that defense is a bit flimsy to me since the fall back to having the paywall blocked could/should be a "Paywall blocked, please disable your addblocker to gain…
I think it's worth mentioning that even if an easylist filter entry counts as "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access" -- which I think is debatable for multiple reasons -- the DMCA takedown procedure only covers copyright infringement . It does not apply to anti-circumvention measures. As Admiral's blog post points out, Github recommends using the same contact procedure for anti-circu…
I made this mistake to, Admiral's blog post does imply it. However, they were making a DMCA take down request, based off the reasoning it was for anti-circumvention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this alternative: disable JavaScript. It's fairly easy in any browser to create a list of websites to ignore JavaScript on.
Doesn't disabling JavaScript these days pretty much break all websites? Or do you disable by default, then keep a whitelist?
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…
Why is it that the tech set always forgets that CS pedantry != legal pedantry? Have we forgotten about intent? You can't just change the line to a regex that /just happens/ to match that URL and go "neener neener neener it's not the same!" Are you willing to argue in court that that line was changed and it /just so happened/ to match the domain from before? Do you have a plausible explanation for why that change woul…
So one argument to do is this is because it is NOT illegal, and the purpose would be to stop frivolous lawsuits.
So yes, it would be trying to creatively skirt frivolous lawsuits.
Another legit reason though, is obfuscation. The company that tried to threaten this frivolous lawsuit may have not even noticed, if it was some weird regex. And they'd either not complain, or have to spend a bunch of money tracking down the problem. Both are wins, in my book.
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…
Why is it that the tech set always forgets that CS pedantry != legal pedantry? Have we forgotten about intent? You can't just change the line to a regex that /just happens/ to match that URL and go "neener neener neener it's not the same!" Are you willing to argue in court that that line was changed and it /just so happened/ to match the domain from before? Do you have a plausible explanation for why that change woul…
I guess the bottom line is whether one is forced to blacklist/whitelist a site and what means are permissible. If its simply about the site name appearing literally then a workaround would seem easy enough and one couldn't claim uniquely singling out because the filter applies more broadly. Of course the intent is the same in both, but I'm not versed enough on DCMA issues to know how intent plays a role in this field. Your point actually makes me curious about the legal field more generally and just how pervasive intent is and what areas of law it plays a role and which is does not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You can argue that's unfair, but we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system. And these are the rules.
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.
I think the crux of the disagreement is that I've seen how tenacious DMCA trolls are. They're smart. We like to think of them as dumb, but that's just flattery.
If you're trying to apply technical tricks to get around the legal system, you generally lose. The way to win in this case is to meet force with force on the same terms: file a counter-notification.
I think you're underestimating how valuable it is to have the content un-encoded on github. Anyone can see it. Flip through their commit logs. They have dozens of contributors that add or remove URLs almost daily. That wouldn't happen if it were encoded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Please ask nicely, Asking nicely doesn't work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On most mouses that's not an issue (assuming no motoric problems). Ctrl-click, on the other hand, requires the use of both hands in most cases.
I've never had a mouse where it wasn't a problem. I don't buy uber-quality mouses, so I'm down in the trenches with the vast majority of mouse users with moderate-to-low quality hardware. I'm also often using a laptop, on linux, and I do the middle-click-simulation (both buttons at once) with two hands, which is really annoying. I suppose I could fix it. Also I always have my left hand on the keyboard, so for me it's…