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

201–210 of 405 posts

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

#201

Post by dao- »

kingofhdds wrote: post #198
kingofhdds wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't offer you a number, but it's significant enough for Google to offer me to autocomplete "firefox quantum addons" with "stopped working", and relevant discussions left a visible footprint on the net. I'm not sure how is the second sentence related to the question. If you're implying that addons dragged it down - it for sure is incorrect.

Yes, Quantum changed API => it made a bunch of addons dead => lots if worried, and upset users appeared discussing it. I have nothing against Quantum, I accept it was necessary to go for a new model, but it clearly shows addons are important for a significant share of users.

You said "exactly because of choice of third-party addons" and that's what I'm questioning. I'm not questioning whether addons in general are important for a significant share of users.

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

#202

Post by austincheney »

nextgens wrote: post #114

I am the author of that add-on ... what would you do in my shoes ? - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? - fight it ? If so, on what grounds and how ? - something else ?

I would consult with an attorney to determine legal options for an adequate defense and expected expenses. A consult is not a contract and you can change your mind if you are unwilling to take the risk with a law suit.

I suspect the take down notice is a DMCA take down based upon an flawed assumption of the law. The hard part about this is arguing the technical merits of the case before non-technical people. While the take down notice is probably in error they could still make a good argument around bypassing their security controls.

You could appeal to the EFF or ACLU. If they are willing to take your case it will be pro bono.

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

#203

Post by andrethegiant »

nextgens wrote: post #114

I am the author of that add-on ... what would you do in my shoes ? - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? - fight it ? If so, on what grounds and how ? - something else ?

What about re-releasing it as a bookmarklet? Slightly worse UX but not blockable by a first party

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

#204

Post by PyroLagus »

kingofhdds wrote: post #170
dao- wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's actually a been big problem for Windows, and installing unsigned software on Windows is harder than it used to be. Also, luckily for Microsoft, installing another OS is harder than using another browser. (I say using, not installing, because there's always another browser already installed on most OSes.)

I'm not sure the "big problem" of Windows stemmed exactly from possibility to install third-party apps, and not from poor security defaults which let those apps to mangle everything around without asking for permission, and poor architectural decisions which let some programs to install themselves (aka viruses). Nowadays Windows is much better with this staff than it's used to be, in spite of the fact that (contrary…

To be fair, Linux and friends aren't much better in that regard. Permission management for locally running programs is pretty much poor by default in all major operating systems. SELinux and AppArmor for Linux improve on the situation, but they're usually not the default unless you're using Fedora, and even there, it might need some extra configuration.

I'm looking forward to capability-based systems with microkernels, since they really improve on the situation, but I think it'll take a while until we get some major ones. Maybe Google's Fuchsia will establish itself soon enough, who knows? (We'll also have to see what can be done about hardware security, since any software mitigation could potentially be rendered useless by insecure hardware.)

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

#205

Post by shiado »

Confusion wrote: post #125
nextgens wrote: post #114

I am the author of that add-on ... what would you do in my shoes ? - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? - fight it ? If so, on what grounds and how ? - something else ?

Rename the plugin and change the description. The message from Mozilla states that the problem is the intent of the plugin. The technological measures it actually takes are not illegal per sé, but are illegal when used to circumvent paywalls (of course IANAL). If you present this as a plug-in that allows you to view websites as the Google bot views them, for educational and debugging purposes, there is no problem. Yo…

This is the best idea here. What's funny is that the news sites in their typical technical incompetence are actually way far behind in this battle. Spoofing user agent does not work anymore on most 'techy' sites who have quality software engineering. Analyzing user agent is preschool tier blocking these days. If the news sites want to get serious they need to use browser fingerprinting to detect human behavior and only accept Googlebot user agents from Google IPs. They are basically complaining about something that they are too technically incompetent to solve themselves.

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

#206

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

Spivak wrote: post #191
superkuh wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Firefox Developer Edition isn't beta.

Isn't the developer edition the replacement for Aurora? (which is supposed to be more unstable than beta)

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

#207

Post by betterunix2 »

scarface74 wrote: post #103
betterunix2 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, I am fine with that tradeoff, because on net society would come out ahead.

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

#208

Post by dao- »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #200
dao- wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be true.

If you claim something like "John is a carpenter because John is a human and carpenters are humans" and someone points out that your logic doesn't follow (by applying it to some other known non-carpenter human), you can then claim that this doens't prove that John isn't a carpenter, but the point is that the original claim utterly fails to prove that he is.

Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action.

If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question.

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

#209

Post by AnaniasAnanas »

JohnStrangeII wrote: post #15
realthing wrote: post #2

here we go -- gearing up to the decade of censorship 2020 and beyond . . . between this and the EU link sharing tax, I am beginning to wonder if the internet really is the last bastion to freedom of speech

This is not a free speech issue at all, nor are the EU regulations free speech issues. The problem with these laws and their interpretation is that they target the wrong organizations and technologies. If a website is illegal, it needs to be taken down by police. Instead, idiot judges rule that certain DNS entries should be blocked. If you shouldn't be allowed to read some pay-walled journal, then the publisher has t…

At least in USA software is considered free speech, as it should be.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...

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

#210

Post by bitpush »

naner wrote: post #148
nextgens wrote: post #114

I am the author of that add-on ... what would you do in my shoes ? - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? - fight it ? If so, on what grounds and how ? - something else ?

I'd just move on. To be honest sites with those types of paywalls should not be indexed. The loophole you are taking advantage of here is a bait and switch by these sites. They want the search traffic but don't want public access. Most of us have already adapted, however, and avoid these sites or pay for them. Your plugin title blatantly describes that you're avoiding paying for something they are charging for so eve…

How is that bait and switch? Their content, their rules.

Its like saying some people get Nike shoes for free in exchange for a review. And when I ask for it, or even take it, they have a problem with it.

I think with physical goods we have an innate understanding of what constitutes as theft. Just because the distribution cost is zero doesn't make digital costs free-for-all.

Post reply on HN