391–400 of 598 posts
Or, you know, host your project somewhere that's actually free & open. Yet another reason GitHub is about the worst place to host community software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. 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…
>Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. But you'd significantly help the legal case of those claiming it is by trying to obfuscate that you're doing so; they would argue in court it's an implicit admission you "knew it was illegal."
So you'd argue in reply that although you maintain that it's legal, you knew that it'd likely be something that bad actors would file frivolous suit over. Even when you win, being hauled into court is incredibly disruptive.
From a recent WSJ article about anti-ad blocking companies: “We really think the free internet is at risk because of ad-blocking, so these types of solutions are needed to turn the tide”, said Dan Rua, CEO of ad-blocking “revenue recovery” company Admiral, which recently raised $2.5 million to help build its platform."[1] It's amazing how selective the CEO's concern for the "free internet" is. Threatening community g…
From Dan Rua's LinkedIn: >The power of the internet to inform, entertain and liberate mankind is at a crossroads. The future of ad-supported content is in peril, and with it, free access for citizens to critical news, education, discourse and resources the world over. The shorthand name for this looming catastrophe is "adblocking" It's like a pimp claiming the human race is going to stop reproducing and die out becau…
I would say this is more damaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
please show me on the doll where easylist caused copyright infringement. admiral provides some service. some people do not want it. the list is not owned by admiral and easylist does not go into the functionalclam website, nor is it a list of results to copyright material. what exactly does a text file do to violate the dmca? this is setting a dangerous precedent.
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. ;-)
- Host content A subject to copyright on site X
- Devise platform Y on site Z whose claimed role is to check whether user has rights to access content A
- Send DMCA on any list or apparatus that tries to block site Z on the ground that it would be a circumvention attempt of platform Y to unlawfully access content A
- Piggy-back on platform Y to do some tracking/stat building about ad-blocking
- Manically laugh at your brilliant scheme
Note that content A and site X could literally be anything and anywhere, possibly even as trivial as a haiku such as "our hard work / by these words guarded / please don't steal". It doesn't even matter that no one is ever meant to ever see the copyrighted work. In this case the copyrighted work could very well be the text/image displayed when ad-blocking is detected, making A == Y and Z == X to confuse everyone while they think this is about displaying ads W.
To sum it up: ad blocking enabled -> copyrighted work displayed -> user views content unlawfully -> ad blocker just circumvented a technological restriction intended to prevent this -> DMCA applies.
Another possibility is that platform Y is preventing ads W to be shown to a certain theoretical group G of people, hence if you are blocking Y, control about W cannot be enforced, whether you were part of group G or not (and of course you were not, but then even though you're not infringing on copyright about seeing W, you're still infringing on circumvention of a device intended to control copyright of W).
Totally roundabout, entirely bogus, but hey, not the first time such heavily pictured crap could still hold water in court.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, specifically, was defective about the notice?
DMCA is for copyright violation. What copyright was being violated here and how?
It's similar to having a movie theater with a locked door. We want to see the movie, but we don't want to pay, and distributing lock picking tools is illegal. And their door is "designed to only stay locked when a light is shining on it".
Here again, we are using technology to disrupt old laws.
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. ;-)
again, what does a text file do to violate the dmca? what's next, a 128-bit number? IANAL, so i guess until it goes to the court and is decided, we won't know.
This number is illegal: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which results every single time in choosing option C: the browser back button.
I always enable ads on a URL if it asks me to (provided they don't over advertise/have spammy advertisements), kind of already feel shitty about what is effectively stealing content for free so those notices just make me conscious of the guilt. I wonder how others rationalize blocking ads and not subscribing either but still feeling entitled to access the content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Republicans control congress and the presidency. With some exceptions, Republicans don't need a single Democratic vote to pass legislation.
Most legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, which means you need at least 8 Democrats (counting the two independents with them). Legislation which Republicans can pass by themselves is the exception, not the rule. One of the problems they had with their health care bill was that it had to fit into the narrow budget reconciliation rules so that they could pass it with a simple majority.