Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 405 posts

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#21

Post by INTPenis »

totfz wrote: post #17

This would not be a problem if Mozilla had sided with users for once and allowed us to install xpi extensions from outside their app store.

Are you saying the extensions are signed?

Becuase if they're not I can't imagine not being able to side-load them.

And if they are, with the amount of Firefox forks we have, it should be trivial to create one that allows for side-loading unsigned or 3rd party signed extensions. Hopefully without too much source modification, just creating a distribution of Firefox would easiest to manage.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#23

Post by pedrocr »

Angostura wrote: post #12
decasteve wrote: post #5

This breaks the social contract of the web. If you publish on the web (over HTTP) using HTML (with or without css+js) then you respect the concept of a User-Agent that renders the content on behalf of the user. If you wish to get around this then create another file format and protocol and application/plugin to do so — one that enforces the DRM for the owner. Don’t take agency away from User-Agent.

Alternatively, the add-ons break the social contract, whereby content creators request payment for their content. If you visit stuff on the web, you respect the concept of a social contract between you and the provide. Don’t try to circumvent their wishes.

> Alternatively, the add-ons break the social contract, whereby content creators request payment for their content.

The site is free to not emit any content before payment is assured. The reason these add-ons are possible is that these sites are trying to have their cake and eat it to. They want to implement the paywall in the user agent so they can still get their content in Google. At the same time some of them are trying to argue for payments from Google for linking to their content. The situation is a mess but it's not about social contracts at all.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#24

Post by betterunix2 »

Angostura wrote: post #12
decasteve wrote: post #5

This breaks the social contract of the web. If you publish on the web (over HTTP) using HTML (with or without css+js) then you respect the concept of a User-Agent that renders the content on behalf of the user. If you wish to get around this then create another file format and protocol and application/plugin to do so — one that enforces the DRM for the owner. Don’t take agency away from User-Agent.

Alternatively, the add-ons break the social contract, whereby content creators request payment for their content. If you visit stuff on the web, you respect the concept of a social contract between you and the provide. Don’t try to circumvent their wishes.

Sure...except that the page content is loaded before any payment is made or confirmed. Websites probably want this to happen so that some user agents will not be blocked by the paywall e.g. search engine crawlers.

Basically it sounds like some publishers want to rewrite the rules of the web to neatly and conveniently serve their interests.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#25

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

totfz wrote: post #17

This would not be a problem if Mozilla had sided with users for once and allowed us to install xpi extensions from outside their app store.

You can if you use the Developer Edition.

It's permanently disabled in the normal version because malware would piggyback on the browser to steal passwords and so on. Obviously Mozilla have no problem with people wanting to make their own extensions and so on.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#26

Post by betterunix2 »

dooglius wrote: post #14

Does Mozilla need to actually host the extension? I'm guessing that that is the problem here. Couldn't they just cryptographically sign it, and leave the distribution to a P2P technology like BitTorrent?

I am not sure it would make a difference to the courts.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#27

Post by Zak »

Angostura wrote: post #12
decasteve wrote: post #5

This breaks the social contract of the web. If you publish on the web (over HTTP) using HTML (with or without css+js) then you respect the concept of a User-Agent that renders the content on behalf of the user. If you wish to get around this then create another file format and protocol and application/plugin to do so — one that enforces the DRM for the owner. Don’t take agency away from User-Agent.

Alternatively, the add-ons break the social contract, whereby content creators request payment for their content. If you visit stuff on the web, you respect the concept of a social contract between you and the provide. Don’t try to circumvent their wishes.

These are competing and potentially incompatible social contracts. As a hacker type who's been on the web a good while, I prefer the former: the client decides how to render content, and the server should not send content it doesn't want rendered.

This doesn't necessarily prohibit the use of paywalls: the paywalled site just has to be designed so that it only sends content to clients that have provided evidence of payment rather than relying on the content being rendered in a way that prevents the reader from reading all of it.

Much as I'm for standards-compliant HTML rendering, I don't want any specific rendering encoded into law.

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#29

Post by betterunix2 »

trollied wrote: post #16

Just a tangent for you all - does anyone envisage a 2nd parallel internet emerging? Not tor-like, an actual completely separate network?

Eric Schmidt suggested this might happen in the future:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/eric-schmidt-ex-google-ceo-p...

Re: Mozilla hit with takedown request for anti-paywall addons

#30

Post by shaki-dora »

monocularvision wrote: post #22

The publishers want it both ways. They need to publish their full article content for search crawlers to read but don’t want humans to see it. The idea that this is a form of DRM protected by the DMCA is laughable in my opinion, but IANAL.

They mostly just want to survive...

But in this case, they specifically want to allow you read maybe a dozen articles per month for free, but also (see above) to eat.

Post reply on HN