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

Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 356 posts

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#331

Post by bigbugbag »

jorvi wrote: post #214
virmundi wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to say. Since you're a finger in the Hand, I guess the palm would tell you to fold.

..when in comes the EU, who have successfully penalized and stared down Facebook, Intel, Apple and Microsoft. And which is either the biggest (until the Brits have officially left) or the third biggest economy in the world. You can't simply ignore them, even as a company of Google or Apple's size.

The brits may not leave, the english will but the scots may leave the UK to stay in the EU which may domino effect northern ireland to leave too and last I check London was thinking about segregating to become a city state to stay in the EU. Also a few islands are expected to be offered to join Spain the minute brexit is acted.

EU rules prevents EU members from dealing directly with a part of a EU member so no negociation are possible with any member of the UK until brexit.

Let's see if the scottish referendum happens...

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#332

Post by bigbugbag »

daxelrod wrote: post #199
JoshTriplett wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Website terms of service are not law, no matter how people have abused the CFAA. You can't control how a browser displays content, whether it does so with a browser, screen reader, or musical interpretive dance. I look forward to seeing that battle play out.

You may be interested in MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.[1] (the WoW Glider case). World of Warcraft's Terms of Use prohibited bots. The court found that users who used the Glider bot with WoW were violating the Terms of Use and therefore were not licensed to use WoW in that way. Because users running WoW must copy its content from their hard drives to RAM to run it, the court found that using Gli…

WoW is hardly a website, let alone one that is freely available for the general public.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#333

Post by bigbugbag »

bduerst wrote: post #162
JoshTriplett wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisements, like any communication, are a form of free speech, but it'd be unprecedented to demand that anyone provide an audience for your speech. You can speak all you like; nobody is obligated to listen.

The audience isn't obligated to listen, but it's also not entitled to use content in a manner that the copyright holder doesn't want them to either. If a copyright holder (like Forbes) stipulates that their content is paid for using ads and they won't let you consume it without looking at the ads, then you're neither obligated to or entitled to consume it.

Ever heard of the hyperlink and communication to the public of copyrighted work conundrum that has been solved by a decision of the European Court of Justice ?

  This decision means that once a work is posted on a 
  website where it is freely accessible to the public, the 
  author cannot control how internet users subsequently 
  access this work. For example, a website owner will not be 
  able to use copyright law to ensure that users who wish to 
  access a certain piece of work would have to go via their 
  homepage, where most of their advertising space may be  
  located.
So good luck to forbes with this argument.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#334

Post by bigbugbag »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #319
narrowrail wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it gets murky. They can't "sell" something but actually mean rent it. That is false advertising, and most people aren't yet accustomed to thinking in this way (i.e. playforsure). A sale is a sale and if people want to redefine it to make what amounts to a highly conditional sale (at best), we should just call that rent .

> The first-sale doctrine does not neatly fit transfers of copies of digital works because an actual transfer does not actually happen -- instead, the recipient receives a new copy of the work while, at the same time, the sender has the original copy (unless that copy is deleted, either automatically or manually). For example, this exact issue played out in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., a case involving online…

What if the recipient receives the physical support that host the original copy , say a usb thumbdrive or a hard drive and the original customer keeps the copy ?

Then what if the customer gives a copy then delete the original but the OS being windows on the FAT entry is deleted and the data still lives on the drive ?

How would one distinguish between original copy and subsequent copy when they're all identical ?

Last but not least, if you read the fine print when you buy an audio cd, you don't buy the music but a piece of plastic and a license to listen to music the piece of plastic hold. This license forbids you from allowing other people from listening, so if you play the CD on speaker with you window open and someone happens to be walking in the street you are now guilty of an illegal communication to the public of copyrighted content.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#335

Post by bigbugbag »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #254
narrowrail wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of making shit up about what you think makes sense, please familiarize yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Instead of cursing, read the link you posted. FSD is about disposing of a physical artifact, not how a licensed work is used, broadcast, or performed.

What about physical artifact holding a licensed work ? like an audio CD or CD-ROM ? Are you allowed to transfer the physical artifact but not the licensed content ? so now the person owns a CD but it is illegal for her to listen to it because she does not hold the license that was only given to the original buyer ?

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#336

Post by bigbugbag »

turblety wrote: post #73
jpambrun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable. Even with the ad labeling requirements relaxed, unless it is truly deceptive, a CNN could identify it just as well (or better) than we can.

Already you have restrictive software/firmware running on your computer. Look into Intel ME (Management Engine) a likely backdoor into your computer you have no control over, don't know what it does, and can not disable it. It already helps many DRM applications to restrict what content you can play and how. Legislation to disable adblocking could be reinforced already be implemented into the next generation of Intel…

> Legislation to disable adblocking could be reinforced already be implemented into the next generation of Intel/AMD chips so you bet this could be enforceable.

But this would be limited to chips to be sold in the US, so US sales would take a hit and import of chips from foreign market would get a boost. Ultimately the chip manufacturers would have to swallow the extra cost of adding this to chips towards the US market while facing a drop in sales in the same market. This situation would prevent the move from actually happening in the first place.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#337

Post by bigbugbag »

gech wrote: post #165
turblety wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Already you have restrictive software/firmware running on your computer. Look into Intel ME (Management Engine) a likely backdoor into your computer you have no control over, don't know what it does, and can not disable it. It already helps many DRM applications to restrict what content you can play and how. Legislation to disable adblocking could be reinforced already be implemented into the next generation of Intel…

Do Ryzen chips have this?

Read about Palladium and Trusted computing, basically every CPU from intel and AMD have had this or a similar feature for several years. I'm not sure about ARM.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#338

Post by bigbugbag »

derefr wrote: post #129
Chaebixi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable An anti-ad-blocker ad would probably be easy to enforce: arrest the people making and distributing ad blockers. However, I think the main threat is a repeal of requirements to label ads (which this technology relies on), not to ban ad-blockers outright. I bet that would cause less resistance. Quoth the OP: > Perceptual ad-blocking, on the other hand, ignore…

You assume everyone who writes an ad-blocker lives in the US, or a in country the US has coerced into joining WIPO. If an ad-blocked is written by a Chinese citizen, hosted in a Russian data-center, and attached to an Iranian domain name, what precisely is the US government going to do?

Arbitrarily seize the domain name.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#339

Post by bigbugbag »

derefr wrote: post #124
jpambrun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable. Even with the ad labeling requirements relaxed, unless it is truly deceptive, a CNN could identify it just as well (or better) than we can.

I'm pretty sure that, if the ad is embedded into a platform that's locked up with DRM, then an ad-blocker developer would necessarily be violating DMCA provisions by publishing their work. It's thankful that no major PC or mobile OS is yet considered to fall under those regulations, but I think it would already apply in the case of game consoles.

DMCA outside the US is the story of polite anakata and retractable batons.

Re: Princeton’s Ad-Blocker May Put an End to the Ad-Blocking Arms Race

#340

Post by bigbugbag »

hackuser wrote: post #100
jpambrun wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable. Even with the ad labeling requirements relaxed, unless it is truly deceptive, a CNN could identify it just as well (or better) than we can.

> Not sure Anti-ad-blocking laws are practically enforceable Many doubted that DRM was practical to enforce.

And as they were impractical apple removed them from itunes in 2009.
Post reply on HN