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 a clear hard though to their continued use of the github platform.
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 profile bio reads "Help all parties understand and resolve DMCA issues efficiently and effectively to minimize file and repository impacts."
Perhaps they should have used a bit more transparency when asking for the offending url to be removed from the repo, instead of acting like a spammy copyright boogyman, then immediately resorting to a dubious DMCA takedown request.
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 platform.
I wonder if folks could get sneaky and change the design from a literal url to a regular expression tailored to single out that url but would also include additional sites that are just gibberish and could be relaxed if useful sites ever do fall into the URL overlap. This might be a new line of research to craft regExs to filter out a specific string while also throwing out a bunch of sister gibberish strings that would be unlikely to be adopted simply by virtue of language.
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 misuse of a DMCA takedown notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
It may very well be that the URL should have been removed, with regard to Easylist policies, github policies, or even some other law. But not DMCA takedown notice. If DMCA takedown notice was the only tool available to them, then they had no tools available to them, because DMCA was not a tool legally available for asking someone to remove a URL from a list. A URL in a list is not possibly copyright infringement.
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just my understanding for sake of discussion of a hypothetical)
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 wasn't at issue.
ETA: a comment below corrects me, saying that the DMCA prohibits distribution of circumvention tools (i.e. makes it illegal and even criminal I think), but doesn't allow takedown notices for such tools: you have to actually sue them in court. So this takedown notice seems to have been incorrect even if the DMCA is invoked.
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.)
There are many cases of DMCA abuse, and it'd be nice if someone had the resources to go after these, get them fined and help set a precedent to prevent further abuse. Unfortunately, that probably cost more than it's worth.
> 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 of their users.
This is also why linux kernel developers will never, ever use a service like Github. Apart from scalability issues, the single point of failure that these services are (not for technical reasons, but for political reasons) is simply scary.
TL;DR: Assholes who send buggy DMCA is not the issue here. Depending on a centralized service is.
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.
> 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 cookies" as it were, this fingerprint remains permanently associated with that browser.
>
> Wonderful feature for an ad agency to track each visitor indefinitely. Even while in Private Browsing / Incognito mode.
Okay. Let's eradicate them from the surface of this planet.
Or, more constructively, go after them in the EU, where such practices would surely be illegal under the so-called cookie law (which is actually about storing information in a user's browser more generally, and not specific to cookies at all).
As long as that really is what they're doing, of course.
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.
It's not clear how trademarks would apply here. I can write "General Motors". I can write about General Motors. I just can't impersonate General Motors or their products. That's trademark.
GitHub is just the platform. If they get a DMCA complaint, procedure says they should contact the repository owner. The repository owner receiving a fraudulent notice sends a one-line email stating "consider this my DMCA counter notice". The content stays online, the DMCA notice does nothing and the only avenue now is for Admiral to sue, which of course they are not prepared to do.
You post an entry on your blog ridiculing them and their VC funded shenanigans and HN gets a good laugh out of it.
This might create a new front in the war against ads. You'll have ad blockers, then they'll build in a component to block anti-adblock mechanisms, which will force the ad makers to employ more countermeasures... I don't see how the content providers will ever win this war. They have more to lose here.
>A companion extension to uBlock Origin: to gain ability to foil early anti-user mechanisms working around content blockers or even a browser privacy settings.
I think /u/gorhill is the lord of this particular war, and his followers are armed to the teeth. I type this on Firefox on Android with uBlock Origin.
I check his github occasionally to see if he accepts donations, and I donate to a couple of the lists occasionally.
In the war analogy, we have the best arms dealers. They other side is fighting a losing war.
Even if we take for granted the absurd premise that this is "copy protection circumvention", it's still nonsense for the same reason that gun manufacturers aren't sued for murders.
Good to hear. I sincerely hope this turns into a lawsuit to scare off others who may be watching the outcome of this to decide if they should try the DMCA route, too.
The DMCA is United States-specific. Copyright laws are very widespread and harmonized to some extent by international treaties such as the Berne Convention; a Google search for that term can lead you down the right path. (I'm not trying to explain anything, just give you some good search pointers if you're interested in researching yourself.)
anywhere but US, already EU countries definition of legality of streaming should be enough to safely just filters lists
from what i remember Spain and Central Europe are very laid back regarding your rights to non-commercial steaming of copies of works you don't actually own
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 access to our content" msg.
Anyhow, that is immaterial because so long as they don't actually serve adds, Easylist could/would have removed the line no problem. Admiral should have just said "Our domain doesn't serve adds, we work on paid content access" and they would have been removed without all this hassle.
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.
I think it's worth mentioning that even if an easylist filter entry counts as "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access" -- which I think is debatable for multiple reasons -- the DMCA takedown procedure only covers copyright infringement. It does not apply to anti-circumvention measures.
As Admiral's blog post points out, Github recommends using the same contact procedure for anti-circumvention takedown requests as for normal DMCA takedowns. But as far as I can tell, they're doing so purely on their own initiative; such a takedown request doesn't have the force of law in the same sense that a claim of copyright infringement does.
The only hope against the DMCA is that eventually the takedowns get so ridiculous that courts are forced to strike it down as the unconstitutional garbage it is.
To that same logic any operating system that allows editing the hosts file or running your DNS service and routing a domain name to loop-back or some other server is also liable for producing circumvention tools.
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 "attack" is that any company can tell lists to remove their website via using a DMCA violation, so lists become useless.
I have two questions:
1. how would a domain name on a list violate copyright
2. why aren't lists hosted anywhere else but the US so that they can't be controlled by DMCA requests.
Frankly parts of this summary sound like the Admiral spin on things.
> So, Admiral—an anti-adblocker company—contacted EasyList and told them to remove a domain from their list.
In reality, a new Github account made a comment on a commit. That account had no identifying details to link them to a company, person, or anything else. For all intents and purposes, it was nobody.
The account is @dmcahelper on Github. It has a marketing blurb in the bio (which mentions no companies or individuals' names) and has starred one repo, Github's dmca repo.
> EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed
A reply said that, essentially, "if you're Github and trying to tell me something, a brand new account isn't one of the channels I'm listening on."
(Anonymous) Admiral didn't reply to that comment.
IMO EasyList had no choice but to thoroughly ignore that comment, as it would be ridiculous to act on it.
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 technology. Copyright owners use it to control access to content. However, an adblocker with Admiral's domain on its blocklist is a tool Y that circumvents that.
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 database.
please show me on the doll where easylist caused copyright infringement.
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.
Ahhhhh. PERFECT. It looks like the counterargument here is that easylist itself isn't used to circumvent admiral, it's only a list. Other things, like ublock, are the ones that use the list, and are actually blocking admiral.
The idea of "removing" a name seems technically unreasonable too. Lists may legitimately be pattern-based (like "ads.*.net" for instance, where ads.targetdomain.net technically matches too).
I hate to say it, but the ad-blocking community is handling this problem the same way governments often handle things: Reactionary instead of pro-active.
The real source of the problem with ads, is that almost every ad network allows ads to be self posted with little to no filter. This opens us all up to the abuse from ads we've been experiencing for over a decade now.
Could you imagine what would happen if you were allowed to self-post an ad on television without the network manually approving each one?
It's time to hold ad networks responsible for their own content. If a virus spreads because of their ads, THEY should be sued, just like MTV and others were when they violated FCC decency rules during the Super Bowl.
I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short little script, rather than playing an audio clip that was provided to them. There are various ways this can and has been applied to Internet ads, like making them text-only.
On the other side of things, I would love to see a search engine that pushes sites down in its rankings proportionally to the obnoxiousness of their ads.
I dislike this more. I can identify most ads quickly and mute them, while on a network like NPR I might be expecting something, you know, interesting until 20 seconds in I realize it's an ad.
From a recent WSJ article about anti-ad blocking companies:
“We really think the free internet is at risk because of ad-blocking, so these types of solutions are needed to turn the tide”, said Dan Rua, CEO of ad-blocking “revenue recovery” company Admiral, which recently raised $2.5 million to help build its platform."[1]
It's amazing how selective the CEO's concern for the "free internet" is. Threatening community github repos with DCMA takedowns is OK though?
>The power of the internet to inform, entertain and liberate mankind is at a crossroads. The future of ad-supported content is in peril, and with it, free access for citizens to critical news, education, discourse and resources the world over. The shorthand name for this looming catastrophe is "adblocking"
It's like a pimp claiming the human race is going to stop reproducing and die out because people don't want to pay for their prostitutes
Ads are a plague that drive content creators toward ever increasing shock value just so that they can get clicks. Quality be damned, views are all that matter.
Usually the "free" in "free internet" refers to free-as-in-speech but it sounds like Dan Rua means free as in beer. And it's true that companies are more likely to put up paywalls if they can't make money with ads but he's using the term "free internet" in a misleading way.
It's amazing that they are so uneducated about DMCA. This is called defective DMCA notice, and it should be ignored. The sender of the notice can now file a suit, since the publisher of the list is no longer under safe harbor. But they won't, since they know it is defective. And if they did, it would be thrown out with a summary judgment.
The notice does not list the copyrighted works that are being infringed (I.e. made publicly available). This is the necessary element of a valid DMCA notice.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating. "Unblock or Subscribe" misses the point. The the point is this: I don't trust you.
I don't trust you not to show me scammy ads, load 2MB of tracking JS, maliciously redirect me, or generally ruin my overall user experience with your content you claim is so valuable. So I run an ad-blocker. I'm blocking your infrastructure because I don't trust it and blocking your ads because I question your judgement.
And the only other option you offer me is for me to give you my credit card number!? To infrastructure I don't trust and to a company whose judgement is in question.
Some of the websites that do that have solid content though. Not good enough for me to pay them though so I end up clicking the back button and using alternative sources.
I always enable ads on a URL if it asks me to (provided they don't over advertise/have spammy advertisements), kind of already feel shitty about what is effectively stealing content for free so those notices just make me conscious of the guilt.
I wonder how others rationalize blocking ads and not subscribing either but still feeling entitled to access the content.
I see some disagreement with you, but I am somewhat of the opinion that I agree (though I don't think it's a great "common user" solution.)
ScriptSafe is running and I allow some sites, trust a few domains, and the rest get, at best, temporary access to run local JavaScript if specific content I want isn't loading. I get the feeling the majority of sites don't even function without JavaScript at this point, and some intertwine their ad system with other "necessary" JavaScript, so it's tough to surf the web without some hassle.
I don't think this is a perfect or even passable long-term mainstream solution.
doing so breaks an increasing number of sites. "so don't visit those sites" is the common response, and is fine as general policy, but sometimes isn't an option.
Yep. I do it in a slightly different way. I have uMatrix installed as a browser add-on to help control for privacy, fingerprinting, security etc. But it can also be used for stuff like this. Simply disabling scripts on many sites' root domain and hitting refresh solves paywalls and adblock prevention on a fair amount of sites. For others it obviously doesn't work and nothing will load, but it works on more than you may expect.
Unless it's The Atlantic, which blocks all article access from my iPad even though I'm a subscriber. I can read their content only with a computer-based browser (with ad blocker, of course).
I contacted them about this, actually. I subscribed to The Atlantic's digital edition expecting ad free: it turns out you need to specifically get an ad free subscription from them. The one offered on the block page is what you need or it doesn't count.
Bonus: After I asked The Atlantic, they partially refunded my subscription and a magazine arrived at my door (for my now cancelled and partially refunded digital only subscription).
Well, it sounds reasonable to ask that question if so many people have Adblock installed?
I have always blocked ads and always (try) will be, but I this is the outcome from Adblock going mainstream. Yes, the ad networks/sites were the reason in the first place, but it doesn't matter. Another side-product is (hidden) "native advertising"... so many tweets/share/likes are purely marketing. That gay marriage article Madonna tweeted? Think twice before you believe he does it out of morals, most likely she is being paid to share that out with her audience.
I just globally turned of javascript, then enabled it on a site-by-site basis. I have been against this for a long time, but turns out I was wrong, and as a site effect this prevents most ads (it also makes sites loads fast).
Call me crazy, but this seems like a pretty honorable scheme for profiting off of content.
Someone put effort in to create content, and has the option of putting this kind of paywall up. There is a consumer choice made to sell their own attention by viewing ads, pay a subscription fee for the content directly, or just move on to free content elsewhere.
That said, most places where you pay the subscription fee will ALSO show you ads and silently sell your data, but still... The above scheme feels reasonable in principle.
Adblocking, at this stage, is about personal safety. Ad networks are demanding the right to execute arbitrary code on end users' machines, and have shown themselves to be completely incapable of vetting that code, leading to ad networks being a common and persistent malware distribution channel.
Which means that using the best available adblocking technology is a necessary personal-safety step on the modern internet.
Perhaps. They are losing people like me though. I will never pay for a subscription to read a website and I will continue using adblockers to get rid of annoying ads.
But they could still profit from me. There are less annoying ways to monetize which I might accept.
For example affiliate links to buy products I am interested in (books, video games, gadgets). I'd be willing to pay % extra for some nice product in order a fund a website which pointed me to it. Or extra traffic I'd refer to their site.
Publically accessible content simply wants to have their search engine pie (public content) and eat it too (paywall).
Ad-blocking makes sure they have to make the hard choice of putting content behind authorization. A user-agent's job is simply to be the user's agent, and not the publisher's monetization platform.
I think it's fair game to say "Our newspaper pays for quality journalists to do quality journalism, please consider subscribing or not using an adblocker on our site".
I prefer this to the WaPo model of paywalling or having a limited number of articles.
I do object to the Bloomberg model though, where they say "We notice you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the performance and content on Bloomberg.com. For the best experience, please whitelist the site."
I agree it's fair game. But I think that message needs to recognize why I blocked those ads in the first place. It's not because "I don't like ads" or "I don't want to support you". It because the ads you were showing sucked: they bogged down my computer and they were malicious.
I would very likely unblock a site if they spoke to that. "We've taken numerous steps in the last 3 months to increase your privacy and eliminate bad, bloated, malicious, and frankly user-unfriendly advertising. We value and will not abuse your trust in allowing us to share advertising with you."
Admiral's product is so poorly designed that it requires cooperation from the browser to work? That violates rule #1 of client/server programming: never trust the client.
Instead, they have to abuse the DMCA to cover for their uninformed engineering choices.
This is despicable.
"Here hold this copyrighted content in memory for me, but don't make any other copies of it because, uh, you don't have the license to make copies of it. Except for, uh, the one that we sent you? To hold in memory? Look, computers are magic.
Note that the offender's privacy policy [1] appears to let users (e.g. you or me) contact support@getadmiral.com "to know whether their Personal Data has been stored and [to] consult the Data Controller to learn about their contents and origin, to verify their accuracy or to ask for them to be supplemented, cancelled, updated or corrected, or for their transformation into anonymous format or to block any data held in violation of the law, as well as to oppose their treatment for any and all legitimate reasons."
Readit News
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 a clear hard though to their continued use of the github platform.
Edit: it looks like EFF has gotten in touch with easylist. Good. https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...
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 profile bio reads "Help all parties understand and resolve DMCA issues efficiently and effectively to minimize file and repository impacts."
Perhaps they should have used a bit more transparency when asking for the offending url to be removed from the repo, instead of acting like a spammy copyright boogyman, then immediately resorting to a dubious DMCA takedown request.
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 platform.
Deleted Comment
Ok. We do not want to copy your add. We just want to get rid of those by putting them in a filter. How on earth this can come under DMCA?
It may very well be that the URL should have been removed, with regard to Easylist policies, github policies, or even some other law. But not DMCA takedown notice. If DMCA takedown notice was the only tool available to them, then they had no tools available to them, because DMCA was not a tool legally available for asking someone to remove a URL from a list. A URL in a list is not possibly copyright infringement.
(I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just my understanding for sake of discussion of a hypothetical)
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 wasn't at issue.
ETA: a comment below corrects me, saying that the DMCA prohibits distribution of circumvention tools (i.e. makes it illegal and even criminal I think), but doesn't allow takedown notices for such tools: you have to actually sue them in court. So this takedown notice seems to have been incorrect even if the DMCA is invoked.
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.)
Deleted Comment
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 of their users.
This is also why linux kernel developers will never, ever use a service like Github. Apart from scalability issues, the single point of failure that these services are (not for technical reasons, but for political reasons) is simply scary.
TL;DR: Assholes who send buggy DMCA is not the issue here. Depending on a centralized service is.
> 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 cookies" as it were, this fingerprint remains permanently associated with that browser. > > Wonderful feature for an ad agency to track each visitor indefinitely. Even while in Private Browsing / Incognito mode.
Okay. Let's eradicate them from the surface of this planet.
As long as that really is what they're doing, of course.
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.
I believe you can trademark a domain, but trademarks are irrelevant to this discussion. The DMCA is a copyright law. The key questions are:
a) Can you have copyright over a domain? (According to https://copyright.gov, no)
b) If you could, would having a list of them constitute fair use? (Almost certainly, otherwise all search engines would be illegal.)
You post an entry on your blog ridiculing them and their VC funded shenanigans and HN gets a good laugh out of it.
>uBO-Extra
>A companion extension to uBlock Origin: to gain ability to foil early anti-user mechanisms working around content blockers or even a browser privacy settings.
I think /u/gorhill is the lord of this particular war, and his followers are armed to the teeth. I type this on Firefox on Android with uBlock Origin.
I check his github occasionally to see if he accepts donations, and I donate to a couple of the lists occasionally.
In the war analogy, we have the best arms dealers. They other side is fighting a losing war.
Deleted Comment
from what i remember Spain and Central Europe are very laid back regarding your rights to non-commercial steaming of copies of works you don't actually own
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 access to our content" msg.
Anyhow, that is immaterial because so long as they don't actually serve adds, Easylist could/would have removed the line no problem. Admiral should have just said "Our domain doesn't serve adds, we work on paid content access" and they would have been removed without all this hassle.
As Admiral's blog post points out, Github recommends using the same contact procedure for anti-circumvention takedown requests as for normal DMCA takedowns. But as far as I can tell, they're doing so purely on their own initiative; such a takedown request doesn't have the force of law in the same sense that a claim of copyright infringement does.
EFF has gotten in touch with easylist according to [1]. That's good.
[1] https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...
Deleted Comment
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 "attack" is that any company can tell lists to remove their website via using a DMCA violation, so lists become useless.
I have two questions:
1. how would a domain name on a list violate copyright
2. why aren't lists hosted anywhere else but the US so that they can't be controlled by DMCA requests.
> So, Admiral—an anti-adblocker company—contacted EasyList and told them to remove a domain from their list.
In reality, a new Github account made a comment on a commit. That account had no identifying details to link them to a company, person, or anything else. For all intents and purposes, it was nobody.
The account is @dmcahelper on Github. It has a marketing blurb in the bio (which mentions no companies or individuals' names) and has starred one repo, Github's dmca repo.
> EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed
A reply said that, essentially, "if you're Github and trying to tell me something, a brand new account isn't one of the channels I'm listening on."
(Anonymous) Admiral didn't reply to that comment.
IMO EasyList had no choice but to thoroughly ignore that comment, as it would be ridiculous to act on it.
In this case, X is the Admiral technology. Copyright owners use it to control access to content. However, an adblocker with Admiral's domain on its blocklist is a tool Y that circumvents that.
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 database.
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.
If Admiral enables paywalls, then I kind of agree with Admiral.
If companies want to put paywalls, circumventing them is kind of like jumping the gate to see a concert for free.
I always hit the back button, but publishers should be free to put up paywalls (no idea why they don't do it server-side, but that's another story).
So, I guess the article or at least the title are a little sensationalistic?
I don't understand. Why would GitHub have to "agree" that EasyList removes a domain from their own list (for whatever reason)?
The real source of the problem with ads, is that almost every ad network allows ads to be self posted with little to no filter. This opens us all up to the abuse from ads we've been experiencing for over a decade now.
Could you imagine what would happen if you were allowed to self-post an ad on television without the network manually approving each one?
It's time to hold ad networks responsible for their own content. If a virus spreads because of their ads, THEY should be sued, just like MTV and others were when they violated FCC decency rules during the Super Bowl.
On the other side of things, I would love to see a search engine that pushes sites down in its rankings proportionally to the obnoxiousness of their ads.
This is not always true - for instance, the "brought to you by" slots at the beginning of the PBS Newshour are advertiser-supplied audio clips.
“We really think the free internet is at risk because of ad-blocking, so these types of solutions are needed to turn the tide”, said Dan Rua, CEO of ad-blocking “revenue recovery” company Admiral, which recently raised $2.5 million to help build its platform."[1]
It's amazing how selective the CEO's concern for the "free internet" is. Threatening community github repos with DCMA takedowns is OK though?
[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-the-anti-ad-blocker...
>The power of the internet to inform, entertain and liberate mankind is at a crossroads. The future of ad-supported content is in peril, and with it, free access for citizens to critical news, education, discourse and resources the world over. The shorthand name for this looming catastrophe is "adblocking"
It's like a pimp claiming the human race is going to stop reproducing and die out because people don't want to pay for their prostitutes
I would say this is more damaging.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
What copyright was being violated here and how?
a) whitelist their site in my adblocker b) or subscribe to their monthly subscription and keep reading their site with adblocker
I don't trust you not to show me scammy ads, load 2MB of tracking JS, maliciously redirect me, or generally ruin my overall user experience with your content you claim is so valuable. So I run an ad-blocker. I'm blocking your infrastructure because I don't trust it and blocking your ads because I question your judgement.
And the only other option you offer me is for me to give you my credit card number!? To infrastructure I don't trust and to a company whose judgement is in question.
Nope.
Only works on some sites, but where it does it's effective.
I wonder how others rationalize blocking ads and not subscribing either but still feeling entitled to access the content.
It's fairly easy in any browser to create a list of websites to ignore JavaScript on.
ScriptSafe is running and I allow some sites, trust a few domains, and the rest get, at best, temporary access to run local JavaScript if specific content I want isn't loading. I get the feeling the majority of sites don't even function without JavaScript at this point, and some intertwine their ad system with other "necessary" JavaScript, so it's tough to surf the web without some hassle.
I don't think this is a perfect or even passable long-term mainstream solution.
Bonus: After I asked The Atlantic, they partially refunded my subscription and a magazine arrived at my door (for my now cancelled and partially refunded digital only subscription).
I have always blocked ads and always (try) will be, but I this is the outcome from Adblock going mainstream. Yes, the ad networks/sites were the reason in the first place, but it doesn't matter. Another side-product is (hidden) "native advertising"... so many tweets/share/likes are purely marketing. That gay marriage article Madonna tweeted? Think twice before you believe he does it out of morals, most likely she is being paid to share that out with her audience.
Someone put effort in to create content, and has the option of putting this kind of paywall up. There is a consumer choice made to sell their own attention by viewing ads, pay a subscription fee for the content directly, or just move on to free content elsewhere.
That said, most places where you pay the subscription fee will ALSO show you ads and silently sell your data, but still... The above scheme feels reasonable in principle.
Which means that using the best available adblocking technology is a necessary personal-safety step on the modern internet.
But they could still profit from me. There are less annoying ways to monetize which I might accept.
For example affiliate links to buy products I am interested in (books, video games, gadgets). I'd be willing to pay % extra for some nice product in order a fund a website which pointed me to it. Or extra traffic I'd refer to their site.
Ad-blocking makes sure they have to make the hard choice of putting content behind authorization. A user-agent's job is simply to be the user's agent, and not the publisher's monetization platform.
I prefer this to the WaPo model of paywalling or having a limited number of articles.
I do object to the Bloomberg model though, where they say "We notice you're using an ad blocker, which may adversely affect the performance and content on Bloomberg.com. For the best experience, please whitelist the site."
Wth? No way. Please ask nicely, no FUD.
I would very likely unblock a site if they spoke to that. "We've taken numerous steps in the last 3 months to increase your privacy and eliminate bad, bloated, malicious, and frankly user-unfriendly advertising. We value and will not abuse your trust in allowing us to share advertising with you."
Asking nicely doesn't work.
This is despicable.
"Here hold this copyrighted content in memory for me, but don't make any other copies of it because, uh, you don't have the license to make copies of it. Except for, uh, the one that we sent you? To hold in memory? Look, computers are magic.
Nevermind. DMCA!"
[1] https://www.iubenda.com/privacy-policy/347981/full-legal