Why use github ? Just move to another service or host your own repo. Be outside US hence outside DMCA reach. problem solved.
Ad blocking is under attack
501–510 of 598 posts
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, in that blog post, they state: "We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit." Their request is here: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562... And was made by this account: https://github.com/dmcahelper So, they made a github account the same day they made the "request" with an account that in no way indicates where the request is coming from? The github p…
It may not be a bad idea to report this user via GitHub's "block or report" feature when viewing that account: https://github.com/dmcahelper That type of behavior can only be bad for open source software. Threats like "to minimize file and repository impacts" are going to push more folks toward private repositories if they don't understand that it's not an actual authority pressing them into making changes on a given…
> That type of behavior can only be bad for open source software.
Using github is bad for FLOSS.
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather just go a level up... You don't want users to tamper with your ads? Ok, we'll block your entire site. No tampering.
I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads, firms may finally listen and stop using those ads
> I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads,
Why stop at intrusive ads ? Just block everything that features commercial ads.
Though the real issue is not ads per se but the tracking that tags along.
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could add to your TOS which browsers are approved. Using an unapproved browser would violate the current CFAA - under the current interpretation. Federal felony 1-5 years.
False. See 828 F.3d 1068 at 1077 (9th Cir. 2016): >From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA. They say this because (Id. at 1076): >"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but website owners retain the right to change the…
Interesting. TOS can't be a 'catch all'. There needs to be another criminal intent. But, wouldn't using the plugin to avoid paying for the service be the other crime? Seems like two crimes? Which would satisfy?
http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1265-...
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
The claim is about copyrighted material thus DMCA, right? the only reason that string appears is for matching. The intent is for identification, not stealing someone else's copyrighted material. If there's a better way to match than comparing to a literal copy then we should do that. Ideally, one regex that matches all offending domains and no others.
They're not claiming copyright on the domain name. They're saying that by blocking it, they're violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA.
Oh, that's way more interesting. So they have standing? I can see the argument that altering the execution of the program sent to the users computer is a DMCA violation (i vehemently disagree, but i can see it). But i don't think they didn't actually wrote the page that's delivered to the user.
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
The DMCA doesn't just let you request the takedown of copyrighted content. It lets you request the takedown of tools which can be used to "circumvent technological restrictions" on accessing other, unrelated copyrighted content. So for instance, when the CSS encryption on DVDs was broken, there were DMCA takedown requests issued to sites hosting the deCSS decryption code, even though the copyright of that code itself…
An adblocker is not a tool which can be used to "circumvent technological restrictions" on accessing other, unrelated copyrighted content. It is a tool to restrict access to content.
At first glance you're right, but it's not hard to imagine an ad system which makes the text of a website invisible (or scrambled) until the advert has loaded, and imagine an ad blocker which is designed to do the unscrambling without rendering the ad.
I don't know if that's the precise situation here, but if the ad blocker is intentionally carrying out a process like this to access the copyrighted work of the website without obeying the restrictions of the technological control process, then I could see that falling well within the bounds of the DMCA.
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand I'm arm chair lawyering, but the purpose of a user agent is to display what the user wants it to, not what the site wants it to. I can't be sued for not watching commercials. Actively circumventing access restrictions is another issue entirely, but if I'm sent data, there is no reason or guarantee it must be displayed as intended. What about blind folk, or those who don't run JavaScript? Is turning off j…
> If a site can't make me pay, and doesn't want it's content to be viewed unless I pay, simply don't send me the content. I'm fully on your side here, but to play devil's advocate, I think it's fair to consider an analogy like "if a restaurant doesn't want its food to be consumed unless I pay, simply don't serve me the food." You ask a server (of the web or the hospitality variety) to serve you the usual. The server…
So, they serve you the food, and you pay for it.
But, you choose not to eat the raw onions they've served with the meal.
This would be the analogy of choosing not to render html/javascript content.
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
To reply to myself, I need to first state that I am not a lawyer. I have, however, taken a number of courses on both law and procedures. Please keep that in mind. I have also now spent more time on this than I'd expected. One of the DMCA provisions, is that (as others have mentioned) that software to circumvent copyright is also prohibited. I do not believe that EasyList meets the legal definition of software. It's n…
By itself, any software performs no functions. Software is just instructions, and a config file is, too, just instructions. Sure, a difference is whether it's instructions for hardware or instructions for other software, but that doesn't sound material to me. Especially when hardware can be emulated by software. However, circumvention tools (software or otherwise) require suing, not merely issuing a takedown notice,…
I'm not sure it meets the definition of a circumvention tool, which appears to be a reference to 'computer software.' As in, the legal definition for such. The courts use a specific definition, found by the entry in the above reply. The few cases I found made use of the specific terminology.
IANAL :-)
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dotcom was accused of doing things that are illegal in both the US and New Zealand (and around 200 other countries...). That's why New Zealand cooperated with the US's extradition request, including raiding Dotcom for the US.
He may not be the best example, but there are others who have been bitten by things as trivial as "routing data through U.S. servers" (including through a CDN). So I guess the lesson here is: don't do that .
Or even merely using a .com TLD.
Re: Ad blocking is under attack
#510It 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…
From the original github commit: > With all these dozens of domains (over a hundred), it sure smells like they're incorporating a HSTS fingerprinting attack into their product portfolio. HSTS fingerprinting enables a server to tag every browser with an n-bit (ie: 100 domains is 100 bits) unique identifier so you can track that browser whenever it returns (or wherever it goes). Since users cannot clear their "HSTS coo…
Couldn't they just use 100 subdomains for their 100 bits?
Maybe we need a browser extension (or just a website) that instructs your browser to make requests to the HTTPS version of domains that are found to be used to set HSTS cookies, thus "blowing the fuses" and making those domains unusable for providing bits of entropy.
In fact, rather than blowing all the fuses, the extension/website could blow just a random few, as a bit mask, giving you someone else's ID number and ruining the ad company's profiling/analytics. That way you would be helping people who weren't using this defence, rather than just having your visits not added to any profile.