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

101–110 of 405 posts

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

#101

Post by quarterlyresult »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25
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.

I wonder to what extent that helps prevent malware from installing a malicious addon to Firefox, because by using the same mechanism as cheating in video games, you can hot-patch a running browser process to disable the functionality to keep it from installing unsigned addons. Technically, in Windows you would just call WriteProcessMemory to modify memory content of another process.

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

#102

Post by Zak »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #86
wpietri wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously not a "request" if they're making legal threats. And it's not payment they're demanding, it's the ability to track anybody who visits their site, whether or not you agree to be tracked. And it's not part of any social contract I agreed to; the (very short) history of the web is an ongoing negotiation. Paywalls were invented this decade. This plugin is part of that negotiation. Browsers already have a m…

This is mostly about "soft" paywalls, allowing you to read maybe a dozen articles per month without paying. There is currently no way I know of allowing this functionality that is meaningfully "reliable". At least not without erecting new barriers such as mandatory registration (and verification). So you, and everyone else, seem to be demanding publishers just switch to "absolute paywalls". You will then have strictl…

Prohibiting paywall bypass software violates the principle that the client dictates how web pages are rendered, or requires carving out a special exception just for the publishing industry.

Viewed under a magnifying glass, it seems like a good thing to ensure the publishing industry can use soft paywalls, but taking a broader view, I think that breaks the web. I don't think soft paywalls are worth breaking the web, and even more broadly, governments should only regulate what users can do with data willingly sent to their computers in very exceptional circumstances.

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

#103

Post by scarface74 »

betterunix2 wrote: post #52
IAmEveryone wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Just take down the website” is disingenuous. You, and I, and those idiot judges all know it’s often much harder, and sometimes impossible, to get to the website owners. “Abolish all copyright” is a legitimate opinion. It’s wrong,of course. But it’s possible to discuss it. Don’t demean yourself and others by starting discussions with disingenuous arguments.

I am not sure abolishing copyright is "wrong," given that copyright developed as a response to a major shift in how written material was disseminated (the invention of the printing press), and that we are now seeing another major shift. A lot of the problems being argued about today, including the issue of paywall circumvention add-ons, have parallels to the historical arguments over printing. Given that copyright re…

So with copyright being removed, are you okay with companies using GPL code in their proprietary closed sourced software? The GPL is only protected by copyright laws.

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

#104

Post by zcid »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25
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.

Would it be difficult to set up a list of allowed signatures in Firefox? By making it unintuitive for the average user to modify, you would prevent most bad actors from succeeding but still allow power users to control their own experience.

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

#105

Post by zcid »

hnaccy wrote: post #28

Another impacted extension: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox/issues...

Further down the comments is a dl link: https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox/issues...

Even if these extensions can still be installed, without being published on Mozilla's addons site, the average user will be unable to find them. It seems like a really bad precedent for Mozilla to accept this without a fight.

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

#106

Post by jeremyjh »

nothis wrote: post #35
Angostura wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"We're sending data to your computer but you mustn't look! Promise!" I'm not sure how the addon worked, if there's some trickery going on, but I'm long waiting for a lawsuit against ad blockers that could get heated.

This has nothing to do with ad blockers, or indeed advertising at all. The way it works is they set the user-agent to one used by search engines. The website thinks you are Google, so they give you the content for free because they want Google to index their proprietary content.

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

#107

Post by dooglius »

vbezhenar wrote: post #56
betterunix2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Firefox is just a platform to run addons, like Windows is OS to run programs. Do you think that Microsoft should curate software allowed for users to run?

FWIW Microsoft _does_ do this, it's just that the alternative is a click-through warning, whereas it's more difficult to install un-curated addons in Firefox.

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

#108

Post by superkuh »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25
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.

Telling people to use a buggy beta is not acceptable. This is anti-user and pro-corporation.

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

#110

Post by AdrianB1 »

bad_user wrote: post #68
AdrianB1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One country cannot police Internet, otherwise China will shut it down tomorrow. If a site is legal in the country where it is hosted, then it is legal and that's it, connecting to Internet assumes you obey this simple rule.

No, a country has sovereignty on its territory and can do whatever they want, including blocking whatever websites they want and not giving a crap about whom they offend. This is why you need to follow the law in the countries wher the service is operational, otherwise the service risks being blocked at the very least. Of course, countries have trade agreements and the circumstances under which services and products…

It is not about sovereignty, it is about jurisdiction. If a site on Internet in a different country is upsetting you, you cannot simply shut it down just because you can convince a judge to do it. The law in your country does not apply to the site in a different country. In the same way, you completely misunderstood how VAT works: when you sell something in EU you collect VAT, but only when the buyer is there and only if you have any presence as a seller in EU. If a EU citizen buys something in Wallmart in New York, Wallmart is paying no VAT.
Post reply on HN