191–200 of 598 posts
The DMCA only applies to the US. Fork the repo and move on. It's time to forget about American hosting.
What about when the USA sent super cops to rappel into Kim dotcoms house and kick down doors?
I didn't get what the hell happened. So, Admiral—an anti-adblocker company—contacted EasyList and told them to remove a domain from their list. This domain was a server they needed for their anti-adblocker platform to work. EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed, so Admiral contacted GitHub and the domain was removed from the EasyList list after GitHub told EasyList they should comply. The…
IIUC, the DMCA says that if there's some technological mechanism X that's used to enforce copyright, and a tool Y that is (or can be) used to circumvent X, then making or distributing Y is itself illegal (as opposed to the act of using Y to circumvent X, which is already illegal even without the DMCA). The DMCA then provides a notice-based method for 'taking down' online copies of Y. In this case, X is the Admiral te…
admiral provides some service. some people do not want it. the list is not owned by admiral and easylist does not go into the functionalclam website, nor is it a list of results to copyright material. what exactly does a text file do to violate the dmca? this is setting a dangerous precedent.
"Your portfolio company @getadmiral is committing fraud by filing false DMCA requests. Can you fix this?"
Birchmere Ventures
Florida Gulfshore Capital
Florida Institute for the Commercialization of Public Research
Mosley Ventures
New World Angels
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/admiral-2#/entity
If they are made aware a portfolio company is committing fraud, hopefully they have enough ethics to help sort out the situation. Not a lawyer, but if the investors are aware of the fraud and do nothing, they may have some liability themselves.
Store a hash of the URLs instead of the URLs themselves.
I don't see how this would work when the URL lists are full of regexps etc. If you could make it work, you'd would wind up with some sort of source file of domains, parsed at build time to generate list of hashes that actually ship with your plugin. That source file would belong in a repo, and would still be DMCA-able in this way. Also, this would make ad-blockers even more CPU intensive than they are. We shouldn't h…
I guess you could distribute a compiled finite automaton instead of a list of hashed values. It would make searching GitHub for "infringing lists" much harder (even harder than hashes).
Nevertheless, I agree with "We shouldn't have to pursue a technical solution". There's no point in trying to act like a Mr. smarty-pants in legal situations, as most technical solutions might not work out as expected in court.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Use the mouse wheel/middle button. Will open a new tab when you click on a link and will close a tab when you click on the tab. This changed my life.
too fickle: half the time I endup also scrolling. ctrl-click is far more predictable. Same result, less "trying to press a thing designed to roll".
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…
DMCA is not the appropriate tool for this. Filing a DMCA takedown notice when you know that there is not any copyright infringement going on in the document you are asking to be taken down is a misuse of the DMCA, and an entity filing such a takedown can be liable for any monetary damages or attorney fess of the other party. Although I don't know that's ever happened, it's in the law as a penalty for intentional misu…
Funny how this disclaimer is only found besides legal advice. Really, you should not have to write this. ("I am not a lawyer" is more reasonable, though.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I can tell, the DMCA does apply (sort of) Admiral seems to be a paywall server basically. If blocking their domain gave access to paywalled content, then the DMCA seems to apply http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-cont... However, that defense is a bit flimsy to me since the fall back to having the paywall blocked could/should be a "Paywall blocked, please disable your addblocker to gain…
It's their fault for delivering data they want restricted. I'm under no obligation to make every HTTP request they want me to or execute any untrusted JavaScript. Nor am I obligated to render their HTML as intended. If they want these things then they need every user to enter onto a binding contract agreeing to those terms.
Well it turns out they kinda do. Sites have terms of service people supposedly agree to, all the time, without reading, because it's fucking impossible.
I posted this argument before and got the following comments which make a good argument:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14095147
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14095410
However the comments get into implementations like Netflix and rendering that data, but it's a bit different because in that case you are paying for access.
Will we be in a world one day where sites can require specific web browsers, by law?