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

341–350 of 405 posts

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

#341

Post by cabalamat »

kgwxd wrote: post #292
cabalamat wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? This add-on is the first XPI I have ever loaded. I didn't find it awkward to do; it is simply: Tools -> Add-Ons -> Cog Icon -> Install add-on from file... The only thing I found unintuitive was the cog icon.

Have you restarted Firefox since you did that? Can't test right now, but I'm pretty sure it will be uninstalled, by design.

I've just tested it, still working.

Mind you I'm using Firefox 61 (current version is 63). I switched off auto-updates when it kept changing my user interface and trashing the extensions I need to use to make the web half-usable (e.g. Adblock Plus, Bypass Paywalls, Disable Javascript, Font Contrast Fix, Stylish).

I'm guessing Firefox 63 doesn't let you run Bypass Paywalls, then? I suspect if fucks up other stuff, though I'm not trying it to find out.

If Firefox want to increase their market share, a good start would be not to make changes that are actively hostile to the user.

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

#342

Post by nextgens »

gnomewascool wrote: post #137
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 ?

Firstly, thanks for the useful add-on! > - provide an XPI (that will only benefit the few since the side-loading process is made awkwarder at every point release) ? You could get your add-on signed as an "unlisted"[0] add-on and upload it to GitHub as a "release" (for which you can upload binary files[1]). This would make the add-on less easily discoverable (than it had been), but at least all Firefox users could ins…

They make it clear that it's not the listing of the addon on AMO that makes it subject to their policies (and local laws)... it's the signing itself.

So yeah... I can provide an unsigned copy of my add-ons to users... but unsigned add-ons are by design awkward to side-load :/

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

#343

Post by cmroanirgo »

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 ?

As I mentioned in a previous discussion on this [0], I would investigate removal of those websites from google by quoting google's terms of service:

"Cloaking refers to the practice of presenting different content or URLs to human users and search engines. Cloaking is considered a violation of Google’s Webmaster Guidelines because it provides our users with different results than they expected.

Some examples of cloaking include:

... Inserting text or keywords into a page only when the User-agent requesting the page is a search engine, not a human visitor." [1]

That you're able to provide the same view shown to google isn't exactly 'bypassing' anything.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18299374

[1] https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en

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

#344

Post by nextgens »

andrethegiant wrote: post #203
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

The most effective trick it uses requires the ability to send custom HTTP headers... that wouldn't work as a bookmarklet.

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

#345

Post by bad_user »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #110
bad_user wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 onl…

> you cannot simply shut it down

Indeed, but you can block it.

And speaking of big organizations like Mozilla or Google, they have to comply with the laws of the countries they operate in. Meaning that they need to block browser extensions in the countries in which they are unlawful and they received a take down request.

So in this case Mozilla would need to block extensions based on jurisdiction. For which they'd need to track their user's location while they are using said extensions, like various websites or game platforms are doing, but which for Mozilla would be a privacy nightmare.

What would you rather have? A browser that tracks extension usage in real time, or a browser that bans those extensions from their repository? At the very least the easier path is the later.

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

#346

Post by realusername »

__d wrote: post #290
dreamdu5t wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paywalls aren’t enshrined by any law. You’re misinformed. the web is public, despite SV’s best attempts to subvert and exploit that. If you don’t want someone accessing information don’t publish it as a website that anyone can access.

Does that apply to online banking as well? If it's legitimate for a bank to hide your data behind a username and password, how is a journalism-provider any different?

because there's no username and passwords for paywalls...

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

#347

Post by _em6m »

austincheney wrote: post #278
alexandernst wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason why I can't just get your lawnmower even if it's visible, in your backyard.

A better comparison is dropping my lawnmower off in your backyard, teasing you with access, and then complaining when you touch it. You cannot reasonably expect to protect or restrict content with a flawed understanding of the medium in which that content is conveyed. If you don’t want me access it don’t put it on the web.

Your lawnmower (your website) is in your backyard (your servers). If I go to your backyard (your servers) and I get/use your lawnmower (your website), I'm 1) trespassing privet property (the paywall) and 2) using something that I'm not allowed to use (your lawnmower, your website that requires me to pay for the content).

No matter how easy is it for me to go into your backyard (bypass your paywall), it's still an offense.

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

#348

Post by _em6m »

thatfunkymunki wrote: post #247
_em6m wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bypassing paywalls is a "more efficient user experience"? Wow... that's a whole new level...

It pretty easily meets the definition of efficiency- it allows users to do more, in less time, and utilizing less resources.

How about paying? That will let you do more, in less time, and won't require an extra browser plugin, which means that it will use even less resources than using a plugin to bypass the paywall.

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

#349

Post by lazulicurio »

harshreality wrote: post #287
lazulicurio wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find that analogy analogous. Alice goes to Home Depot. Aviators cost $50, but they're on sale for $5 if your name is Bob. Alice tells the cashier that her name is Bob and shows an (obviously) fake ID. The cashier isn't paid enough to care, so Alice gets the glasses for $5. I agree with you that anything Alice does after this point is her own business. I could accept an argument that Home Depot should've paid…

I don't find your analogy analogous either. Not only did you equate physical property to IP, but even if you accept that equivalence for the purpose of argument, your analogy seems like it would be better if... Home Depot gives (more like leases, when taking into account that copyright doesn't allow transitive redistribution... no first sale doctrine for intangible/unfixed IP) the aviators to Bob for free, knowing th…

> Not only did you equate physical property to IP

Tracking the ownership of the aviators is a non sequitur, as the issue occurs at the point of transaction, not before or after.

> [Bob] set[s] up a table outside that looks like he's giving away free sunglasses, but when you pick up a pair a Home Depot employee comes out, snatches them away from you, and starts pressuring you to get you to buy a pair

> You had the aviators in your hand, or in Google's case, you read a snippet they had indexed. You can practically taste it, metaphorically speaking, and then comes the hard sell

I don't think that just because a publisher makes content free to one user for one use case it obligates them to make content free to all users for all use cases.

Does a studio including snippets of a movie in a trailer mean that the movie has to be distributed for free?

I would argue Google's actions are more akin to an advertising or PR firm drumming up interest by showing bits of the article to consumers.

If I had to condense my thoughts into a couple of bullet points:

1) There is a colorable difference between ad blockers and what this extension is doing

2) I think it is unfair to characterize disapproval of this specific extension as an attack on ad blockers in general

3) Publishers have the right to give samples of their content to search providers without them being obligated to make the content free for everyone

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

#350

Post by austincheney »

_em6m wrote: post #347
austincheney wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better comparison is dropping my lawnmower off in your backyard, teasing you with access, and then complaining when you touch it. You cannot reasonably expect to protect or restrict content with a flawed understanding of the medium in which that content is conveyed. If you don’t want me access it don’t put it on the web.

Your lawnmower (your website) is in your backyard (your servers). If I go to your backyard (your servers) and I get/use your lawnmower (your website), I'm 1) trespassing privet property (the paywall) and 2) using something that I'm not allowed to use (your lawnmower, your website that requires me to pay for the content). No matter how easy is it for me to go into your backyard (bypass your paywall), it's still an off…

If I can download your content by simply changing my user-agent identifier you don't have any security. In this context the backyard is the local computer and web browser. The lawnmower is the content in question. It is deposited and there. If you don't want the user to access your content then don't drop it into their backyard. The user isn't trespassing by accessing content left in their property.

More simple, if you don't want the user to have it then don't give it to them.

Post reply on HN