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

451–460 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#451

Post by [deleted] »

thecrazyone wrote: post #423
Gracana wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list. This ending up not serving your purpose nor theirs. For instance, let me go out on a limb and point out how some distros of linux insist on shipping without any non-free software. So, a user ends up having to go through hoops to just get an audio of video file playing. I think the analogy Im going for is, you don't want to play by our rules (our lic…

[deleted]

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#452

Post by kazagistar »

politician wrote: post #417

Admiral's product is so poorly designed that it requires cooperation from the browser to work? That violates rule #1 of client/server programming: never trust the client. Instead, they have to abuse the DMCA to cover for their uninformed engineering choices. This is despicable. "Here hold this copyrighted content in memory for me, but don't make any other copies of it because, uh, you don't have the license to make c…

No, they knew exactly what they were doing.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#453

Post by gcb0 »

throwawaywonk wrote: post #251
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…

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 use legal pedantry?

instead of blocking requests, replace the domain name with something funnily invalid, with a play on words on each original domain. then in case of any dmca, claim satire fair use.

it would make patchs review much more fun too!

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#454

Post by KGIII »

KGIII wrote: post #435
tuupola wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA request itself seems to be here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-08-02-L...

I've done a bit of research, now. You can trademark a domain name, but it appears they can't be copyrighted. I am pretty sure the DMCA is silent in regards to trademarks. Hmm...

To reply to myself, I need to first state that I am not a lawyer. I have, however, taken a number of courses on both law and procedures. Please keep that in mind.

I have also now spent more time on this than I'd expected.

One of the DMCA provisions, is that (as others have mentioned) that software to circumvent copyright is also prohibited.

I do not believe that EasyList meets the legal definition of software. It's not software, I don't believe. It is a list used by software. Basically, it is a configuration file. By itself, it performs no functions.

Its pretty much a 'dumb' plain text file. It is not executable, in and of itself. By itself, it does exactly nothing except take up space.

Computer software is defined in 48 CFR 2.101 and, unless my reading is incorrect (and it may be), this doesn't enable a program to be produced, created, or compiled.

I can find no rulings on this subject, however.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and you should check with a qualified legal professional in your jurisdiction before acting.

That said, this does make for a potentially interesting case. It's probably a good thing to get some decision handed down. That and, well, it'll be pretty easily circumvented regardless of potential rulings.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#455

Post by spydum »

lightbyte wrote: post #277
augustus0 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could this comment alone be considered infringement and be subject itself to a DMCA takedown? You are instructing someone how to potentially bypass security measures for copyrighted works? /s

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#456

Post by WovenTales »

warcher wrote: post #444
goodplay wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does ad-blocking have to do with copyright circumvention or copyright enforcement? The only think on that list is the domain name. I'm certain that including a name in a list does not fall under copyright (ample precedent that backs it up). In the unlikey (and unfathomable) case that it is protected under copyright, I bet it would fall under fair use. Trademark law isn't relevant to an entry in a machine databas…

I think the argument would be that, say, the New York Times wrote an article, and that article included ads for their sponsor. This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material. I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere…

For the sake of argument, there's a difference between someone's IP and the wrapper it comes in. I'd be more than happy to pay for an audiobook through Amazon (or just get Audible), but until a recent hardware upgrade, I literally couldn't listen to them on the device I had access to during the period I had time to listen to them because Amazon decided I had to have their software to do so. So I found another place I could get the actual content in a different wrapper that did let me play it on my old Sansa+Rockbox (Downpour, if anyone's wondering). I'm more than happy to see an ad beside or before the main content, but whatever site I'm on did not make the ad and taking it off the page is no more changing their IP than taking a black marker to a physical newspaper.

I do block ads, though, despite actually wanting to see them to support the site. My problem is in the potential for viruses and tracking, and while that's a separate issue a few other threads are already talking about, there's been disappointingly little actual progress in making sure you can browse safely without resorting to nuking everything. I've been following the development on Brave because their proposed methods seem like one of the few ways to actually make it work.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#457

Post by gasof »

kelnos wrote: post #432
stale2002 wrote: post #295

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…

Blocking a URL is, in and of itself, not illegal, sure. Blocking a URL that allows you to break a copyright-protection mechanism[1,2]? Well, that's not so clear. It's also unclear whether or not Admiral falls under the umbrella of a copyright-protection mechanism. I really really really want EasyList to be in the right here, and be able to re-add the block without fear, but it's far from clear what all the implicatio…

Do you think adblocking is the same as removing DRM? How do adblockers technically relate to copyright infringement? I don't see any adblocker do anything about DRM.

If there is an adblocker that allows me to download lossless video from Netflix I'd sure like to hear about it.

Are you perhaps saying that the ads played on Spotify and YouTube are a form of DRM? Or does every TOS violation constitute a DRM violation now?

How is "blocking ads" in any way related to copyright and DRM?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#458

Post by jimktrains2 »

jerf wrote: post #231
jrochkind1 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA does make distributing circumention measures illegal, but I can't find anything in the law, or discussions of it, saying that the takedown process applies to circumvention measures. The takedown process says an ISP like Github is not liable for copyright infringement if they respond to takedown notices, which is what creates the takedown process. It doesn't say anything about circumvention measures and liabi…

As I added after you replied, I agree that this is an improper use of the takedown procedures. However, your reward for successfully armchair-lawyering that may be a full-on Federal lawsuit. Also, I agree that Easylist itself may still not be a lawsuit target. It simply makes a claim about a certain domain, it doesn't do any access circumvention itself based on that claim. But if Easylist isn't, the ad blockers using…

I understand I'm arm chair lawyering, but the purpose of a user agent is to display what the user wants it to, not what the site wants it to. I can't be sued for not watching commercials.

Actively circumventing access restrictions is another issue entirely, but if I'm sent data, there is no reason or guarantee it must be displayed as intended. What about blind folk, or those who don't run JavaScript? Is turning off just now illegal? What about not downloading images?

If a site can't make me pay, and doesn't want it's content to be viewed unless I pay, simply don't send me the content.

Again, circumventing access control, even terrible ones, is one thing, but if you send me the data, then you sent me the data, what the issue?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#459

Post by askvictor »

MentallyRetired wrote: post #309

From Admiral's responding blogpost: > 5. We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit. > Transparent engagement between publishers and visitors is a critical piece of that. Umm, no? Admiral created an account that they hoped would be mistaken as an official github bot or something. And then, instead of asking, they threatened disruption of the repository. So, in summary, they: * Tri…

And in one feel swoop they've managed to destroy any good will towards their mission and business model.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#460

Post by KGIII »

AlexC04 wrote: post #382
jasonkostempski wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can add it to "My filters" within uO. Host file has no wildcard support which you need for full coverage.

what is uO? I've been using a hosts file. I'd love to up my game. Ahhh... other comments are saying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin

Tangentially related, the author of that project has also created uMatrix. Well, it's the micro symbol, but you get the idea.

uMatrix is pretty much like an old school software firewall, except it is just for your browser. It works by whitelisting, instead of blacklisting. There is a bit of a learning curve, but after you've visited your most visited sites, it becomes a fairly easy solution. As you fist visit sites, you configure it to only allow what is needed to get the functionality you want. Once done, you don't generally have to muck with it further.

As stated, there is a learning curve. There are many choices of what to allow and block, but you can surely figure it out. You can even export and share your configuration.

I am not affiliated. There is a version for Firefox, Chrome, and my beloved Opera. It'll probably work in Pale Moon, Vivaldi, etc...

It eliminates the need for multiple extensions. I've been very happy with it.

Post reply on HN