Ad blocking is under attack • Hacker News Board

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#521

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:27 AM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #363

dangrossman wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should Github take on unlimited liability for someone else's code? If a judge agrees that blocking this anti-circumvention technology is illegal (something the DMCA does prohibit), and Github had refused to take it down (which means they don't get safe harbor), then Github is the first-party that is liable for distributing that illegal technology, probably many millions of times. When you start taking statutory f…

Because it does not accept unlimited liability by following DMCA takedown procedure. Following it places Github into the DMCA safe-harbor. Not following it opens Github to liability. This is what should have happened: 1. Github is served with a DMCA Takedown notice 2. Github validates that the notice is valid 3. Github takes down the $FILE or $REPO 4. Owner of the Repo contacts Github 5. Github notifies the owner of…

[deleted]

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#522

Post by colept » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:27 AM UTC

jetpks wrote: post #263

colept wrote: post #206

I have a very unpopular opinion that pulls me in two directions. Advertisements have exceeded the point of being a nuisance for many years. But adblocking is a fight that solves symptoms and will affect more than just advertising in a negative way. The best parallel I can draw is to the Napster era when pirating music cut off the head of the chicken in the industry. Hollywood and like were refusing to adjust to digit…

> The best parallel I can draw is to the Napster era when pirating music cut off the head of the chicken in the industry. I don't think this comparison holds up. Napster was a peer to peer network where publishers of the works being downloaded had no control over who was able to download what. By contrast, web publishers have extraordinarily fine grained control over distribution of their works. For example, when I c…

> If publishers are upset about people reading their content without displaying ads, maybe they should stop giving it all away for free.

Hence, monopolies. Small timers won't be able to afford the lack of revenue.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#523

Post by goodplay » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:40 AM UTC

warcher wrote: post #444

goodplay wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does ad-blocking have to do with copyright circumvention or copyright enforcement? The only think on that list is the domain name. I'm certain that including a name in a list does not fall under copyright (ample precedent that backs it up). In the unlikey (and unfathomable) case that it is protected under copyright, I bet it would fall under fair use. Trademark law isn't relevant to an entry in a machine databas…

I think the argument would be that, say, the New York Times wrote an article, and that article included ads for their sponsor. This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material. I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere…

>This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material.

It's not a third party tool. It's a tool used by the first party (user) to modify information that was sent to him without effecting the publisher. I don't see how the publisher has any authority over what the user chooses to do with the information he obtained.

> I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere.

That's an interesting take on IP rights. By generalizing your argument, would you argue against newspaper snippets because a reader would only collect the article without adjacent ads? (with scissors made by a third-party, no less.)

> You do not have a right to anybody else's IP.

Fair use, Noncopyrightable items, old expired IP, and the public domain are all examples of rights I have to others IP. Rights have been - and I hope will continue to be - balanced between the concerns of IP "owners" and the rest of society to best serve everyone's interests. Tipping the scale in one side's favor like what you advocate here will disrupt that balance.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#524

Post by colept » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:45 AM UTC

CaptSpify wrote: post #226

colept wrote: post #206

I have a very unpopular opinion that pulls me in two directions. Advertisements have exceeded the point of being a nuisance for many years. But adblocking is a fight that solves symptoms and will affect more than just advertising in a negative way. The best parallel I can draw is to the Napster era when pirating music cut off the head of the chicken in the industry. Hollywood and like were refusing to adjust to digit…

IMO: The problem is an economic one. Our economic models are so out of touch with reality that there's no way to solve this peacefully within our current system. There's no reason for middle-men or gateways in distributing digital media anymore, but we still don't have a reliable alternative to pay the artist. The distribution middle-men used to do that.

This is the problem that is grabbing at me. Well put.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#525

Post by goodplay » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:55 AM UTC

warcher wrote: post #519

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." How? How can that possibly be hard to justify for anyone that even believes vaguely in the notion of freedom, much less someone "hardline"? Do you think I break the law (or ethics) if I take the ads insert out of a newspaper I buy without reading them? How about if…

I get in a lot of arguments with dudes who believe they have a right to stuff other people made without payment or consequence. The last one I remember is a bunch of DJs who didn't want to get permission to use samples. I find the arguments pretty spurious and it's best not to engage. It's their website. If you don't like their website, we got a whole other internet to enjoy.

This has nothing to do with believing that we have right to other people's work without payment. The fundamental issue is that these publishers are allowing public access to their work than expecting to have some control over how it is consumed. Hanging your painting in a public park and then demand that people not wear sunglasses when looking at it, or demanding that onlookers look at it sideways would be absurd. Don't hang your paintings in public parks. Hang it in a private gallery, and make no-sunglasses a term for admission.

Publishers would be better served if they restricted their articles, by demanding payment upfront before serving the article, rather than unreasonably and unrealistically demanding that people consume their content in a certain way. Don't blame your users for your failed business model.

As a side note, Copyright is not the place where this issue should be tackled as no copyright is being infringed (Content is not being redistributed).

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#526

Post by jimktrains2 » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:57 AM UTC

hunter2_ wrote: post #499

jimktrains2 wrote: post #458

Earlier 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…

But there is no expectation that a restaurant will serve you without paying. There is an expectation that a website will ask for payment/authorization if required, otherwise I'm not required to pay.

Moreover, there is no way to know if the content you're requesting will require a transaction (unlike a restaurant where the prevailing expectation is payment for service, even if prices are left off the menu). It has always been the case that I need to request the resource and then be told if it costs money, otherwise it's given to me.

Likewise, there has never been, and I would argue can't be, an expectation that a user agent render all content as expected. Would custom style-sheets violate the law? Do Lynx, Links, Links2, w3m, mutt, and pine all of a sudden become illegal? How does a screen reader render an ad? How does a braille interface render an ad? Am I now legally required to run a graphical interface otherwise I'm playing legal roulette?

What happens if the adserver malfunctions and doesn't send me an ad? Am I now put in a legally bad spot? What if an ad is sent in swf and I don't have flash installed? I also feel like there are legal implications to forcing someone to execute code sent to them. Do ad servers all of a sudden become responsible for drive-by malware? Can we sue them for damages?

I feel that the crux is that there is no way to know if "payment" is required before requesting a resource. You can't send me something and then say, "oh, yeah, hey, you need to pay me for that" when the (vast) majority of the time I'm sent things without any expectation of payment.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#527

Post by gleenn » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:57 AM UTC

Arkanosis wrote: post #284

Hoshea wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Additionaly, this account is borderline with regards to GitHub's TOS¹: “While using GitHub, you agree that you will not under any circumstances: […] impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives, including through false association with GitHub, or by fraudulently misrepresenting your identity or site's purpose”. They haven't explicitly impersonated GitHub, but I bet I'm not the o…

I just filled a complaint, they have a "report this use" link. Took only a minute, whatever it takes to keep people from abusing people and collaboration, especially using the ugly DMCA hammer.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#528

Post by stordoff » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 1:58 AM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #506

JBSay wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 websit…

AFAICT, the relevant provision of the DMCA here is "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".

Is there any elaboration on what "effectively controls access" means (e.g. in case law or in the statute that I missed)? Does a system that fails open (the only thing listed in the EasyList commit was the domain name, so a network error would replicate the same situation) fall within the scope of the provision?

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#529

Post by goodplay » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 2:05 AM UTC

danarmak wrote: post #256

goodplay wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does ad-blocking have to do with copyright circumvention or copyright enforcement? The only think on that list is the domain name. I'm certain that including a name in a list does not fall under copyright (ample precedent that backs it up). In the unlikey (and unfathomable) case that it is protected under copyright, I bet it would fall under fair use. Trademark law isn't relevant to an entry in a machine databas…

Admiral's domain serves software that enforces access restrictions to copyrighted content. Including their domain in an ad-blocking list is a way to circumvent the restrictions. Whether distributing a list of domain names counts as distributing "tools" or whatever the exact language of the act is, I don't know. This other subthread contains a better discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14991624

I doubt failing to contact a server would circumvent DRM. Blocking their servers would only make their DRM scheme fail and prevent access to said copyright material.

Using the DMCA to protect company's defective and flawed DRM scheme does not constitute circumvention. As such, I do not believe that DMCA's anti-circumvention laws are relevant.

Re: Ad blocking is under attack

#530

Post by CaptSpify » Sat, Aug 12, 2017, 2:18 AM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #388

xroche wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then well, easylist and all other developers should be giving a clear hard though to their continued use of the github platform. This. This is the main topic here. The wide use of centralized services (such as Github, but it applies also to Facebook, Google et al.) makes you dependent to corporate decisions, including coward (or maybe rational) decisions towards freedom o…

It's not Github's job to stand up to DMCA notices. The law requires them to forward them to the account publishing the content without any consideration of the merits. Then, easylist has the option to comply or refuse.

> It's not Github's job to stand up to DMCA notices.

I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing for the legal grounds here. I'm not a lawyer, so I will leave that to them. I'm arguing from a more moral/ethical stance.

I'd like to disagree with you. By allowing you to run under their umbrella, I feel that Github has a responsibility to take care of you, and the data that you put on their site. I feel that it is quite insincere for them to say "Sure, put your code on our site!" but then kick you to the curb as soon as there's any trouble. There's definitely a level of extremity that I don't expect from them: I think that after a certain amount of legal argument, they should pass it to the uploader, but I feel like their default attitude should be "no, you can't just attack the uploader because you feel like it."

It sends a clear message to the FOSS community that they don't care about taking care of their own, which is bad for Github, and bad for the committers.

I'd be curious though: Why do you think that "The law requires them to forward them to the account publishing the content without any consideration of the merits"? It's my understanding that they do have some grounds here as it is their site.

EDIT: I reworded my post as the original was rude, and accusatory.