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

491–500 of 598 posts

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#491

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

greesil wrote: post #334
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 not just use a base 64 representation?

How would this help in the long term?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#492

Post by thesmallestcat »

elihu wrote: post #473
TheKarateKid wrote: post #324

I hate to say it, but the ad-blocking community is handling this problem the same way governments often handle things: Reactionary instead of pro-active. The real source of the problem with ads, is that almost every ad network allows ads to be self posted with little to no filter. This opens us all up to the abuse from ads we've been experiencing for over a decade now. Could you imagine what would happen if you were…

I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short little script, rather than playing an audio clip that was provided to them. There are various ways this can and has been applied to Internet ads, like making them text-only. On the other side of things, I would love to see a search engine that pushes sites down in its rankings proportionally to the obnoxiousness of their ads.

I dislike this more. I can identify most ads quickly and mute them, while on a network like NPR I might be expecting something, you know, interesting until 20 seconds in I realize it's an ad.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#494

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

cft wrote: post #133
otterley wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, specifically, was defective about the notice?

The notice does not list the copyrighted works that are being infringed (I.e. made publicly available). This is the necessary element of a valid DMCA notice.

It made me curious, too. All DMCA takedown requests I saw contained this element - except this one.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#495

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

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…

> 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."

How?

How can that possibly be hard to justify for anyone that even believes vaguely in the notion of freedom, much less someone "hardline"?

Do you think I break the law (or ethics) if I take the ads insert out of a newspaper I buy without reading them? How about if I hire a secretary to do so?

> This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material.

At the request of the first party (you) after receipt by the first party. They're not packaging it up and reselling it, they're automating your curation of a work you legally own a copy of for the purposes of your own consumption.

> You do not have a right to anybody else's IP.

Then the NYT should stop giving it away free.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#496

Post by revelation »

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…

GitHub is just the platform. If they get a DMCA complaint, procedure says they should contact the repository owner. The repository owner receiving a fraudulent notice sends a one-line email stating "consider this my DMCA counter notice". The content stays online, the DMCA notice does nothing and the only avenue now is for Admiral to sue, which of course they are not prepared to do.

You post an entry on your blog ridiculing them and their VC funded shenanigans and HN gets a good laugh out of it.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#497

Post by btym »

yrro wrote: post #476
thecrazyone wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What common audio/video codecs/formats require non-free software to play?

DVD, MPEG-2, Flash, MP3 (at least, until all of its patents expire by the end of the year).

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#498

Post by dane-pgp »

criddell wrote: post #442
throwawaywonk wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How about using ROT13 encryption for the list and then go after them if they circumvent your content protection scheme.

That's a funny thought, but the company making the complaint could probably prove that the ad blocker was interfering with their ads even without looking at the source code.

Moreover, the DMCA covers unauthorised access to copyrighted content, and the ad blocker cannot claim ownership of the ROT13'ed domain name, just as the domain name itself is not copyrightable.

In theory the ad blocker could use a more complicated scheme to obfuscate their source code, but I'm not sure whether they could combine a "do not de-obfuscate this code" rule with an open source / Free Software license.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#499

Post by hunter2_ »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #458
jerf wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

> 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.

I'm fully on your side here, but to play devil's advocate, I think it's fair to consider an analogy like "if a restaurant doesn't want its food to be consumed unless I pay, simply don't serve me the food."

You ask a server (of the web or the hospitality variety) to serve you the usual. The server gives it to you and reminds you that the deal hasn't been fully executed yet: you're to next [ask the cashier by the door to ring you up || ask the ad server to serve you an ad], and then [pay when asked || render the ad amongst the rest of the content]. Sure, you could forego talking to the [cashier || ad server] instead.

Again, I don't like that one bit, but I think it's the kind of "reasonableness" that holds up in court. IANAL.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#500

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ascorbic wrote: post #467
jfoutz wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim is about copyrighted material thus DMCA, right? the only reason that string appears is for matching. The intent is for identification, not stealing someone else's copyrighted material. If there's a better way to match than comparing to a literal copy then we should do that. Ideally, one regex that matches all offending domains and no others.

They're not claiming copyright on the domain name. They're saying that by blocking it, they're violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA.

Since when does the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA have anything to do with the notice-and-takedown section of the DMCA?
Post reply on HN