So if a particular site uses admiral to protect its ads, it loses traffic.
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.
For instance, let me go out on a limb and point out how some distros of linux insist on shipping without any non-free software. So, a user ends up having to go through hoops to just get an audio of video file playing. I think the analogy Im going for is, you don't want to play by our rules (our license, etc), we'll not use your software (or correspondingly block your site).
I'm trying to point out what I think is likely consequence of such an action
/impassionate comment
I don't think that's universally true. For me, if a site is broken because blocking ads also makes the content inaccessible, I just close the browser tab and move on with my day. (For a while the LA Times was blocking content in this way, so I just refused to visit their site. I guess it worked; they don't do this anymore.)
I don't claim to be the common case, but frankly I don't know what the common case is, and I suspect you don't either, so it could go either way.
I disagree. Users use adblock lists to protect themselves. This company has proven that they are actively hostile to users. Blocking their entire site, all of their domains, etc, is a sensible precaution for users to take. I have no doubt that this company serves JavaScript (i.e. executable code) that serves their purposes, not users'. And any other sites that insist on using their services are also hostile to users, and blocking them is sensible as well.
If some users just have to see that site, they can either find another list (who cares, no one's doing this for Internet Points), or they can click the "Add Exception" button.
We need not submit ourselves to be effectively held hostage by hostile content providers. It's just content.
Flash I will give you, though it has been an irrelevance to me since YouTube went HTML5.
> Many GNU/Linux distributions do not contain libdvdcss (for example, Debian, Fedora, SUSE Linux, and Ubuntu) due to fears of running afoul of DMCA-style laws, but they often provide the tools to let the user install it themselves. For example, it used to be available in Ubuntu through Medibuntu, which is no longer available.
How you block the domain - with a simple string or an automatically trained neural network - doesn't matter.
You're asserting things to be true that are very much in question, and the assertion borders on the absurd.
Is it also a DMCA violation to add firewall rules to ones own network equipment?
That way any domain that was ever added would be in the blocklist. True negatives should be pretty low.
*edit: removed a redundant word
Edit: libertarianism anybody ? :D
Which will make administration rather more complex.
I guess the bottom line is whether one is forced to blacklist/whitelist a site and what means are permissible. If its simply about the site name appearing literally then a workaround would seem easy enough and one couldn't claim uniquely singling out because the filter applies more broadly. Of course the intent is the same in both, but I'm not versed enough on DCMA issues to know how intent plays a role in this field. Your point actually makes me curious about the legal field more generally and just how pervasive intent is and what areas of law it plays a role and which is does not.
1. Site added to block list.
2. Site removed from block list due to DMCA takedown request.
3. Site block by new rule added that doesn't target it directly.
I can't imagine any judge or jury looking at that sequence events and then taking you seriously when you say "I didn't intend to block the original site".
The parent's point was more along the lines of: people in the tech world need to stop looking for technical solutions to all problems. Some problems are social problems, or legal problems. They should be solved directly, not with awkward (or possibly illegal or at least tort-worthy) workarounds. We talk about chilling effects and corporations engaging in anti-social behavior when they threaten open source and the open web in particular, but attacking social/legal problems with technological workarounds is itself also anti-social.
Not saying that technological solutions are not useful sometimes. In the short-term, you can often make a bad social or legal problem less bad by using a tech workaround, while simultaneously taking the long slog toward fixing the root of the problem. But putting tech band-aids over our problems and then walking away will only hurt us in the long run.
However I think what actually happened was that the business is operating paywalls/"anti-adblocker-walls" for other sites - so they claim that blocking them constitutes "circumvention of protection devices" for their customers - which indeed would be far severe for adblockers if confirmed by a judge.
(That's my understanding, though I might have gotten it wrong)
So one argument to do is this is because it is NOT illegal, and the purpose would be to stop frivolous lawsuits.
So yes, it would be trying to creatively skirt frivolous lawsuits.
Another legit reason though, is obfuscation. The company that tried to threaten this frivolous lawsuit may have not even noticed, if it was some weird regex. And they'd either not complain, or have to spend a bunch of money tracking down the problem. Both are wins, in my book.
Blocking a URL that allows you to break a copyright-protection mechanism[1,2]? Well, that's not so clear. It's also unclear whether or not Admiral falls under the umbrella of a copyright-protection mechanism.
I really really really want EasyList to be in the right here, and be able to re-add the block without fear, but it's far from clear what all the implications of this are. I'm glad the EFF has stepped in to help them out; I'm content to wait for their opinion (or the opinion of an actual lawyer versed in the subject at hand) on this.
In the end, this is just another example of why the DMCA needs to go.
[1] Yes, you could say that this is bad design that the mechanism can be broken so easily, but that's not the point: the DMCA doesn't care how good or bad the mechanism is. If you break it, you're in violation.
[2] I suppose there's another point to be made: DMCA takedown notices are only for removing content or links to content that contain actual material where copyright has been infringed, not for removing circumvention tools.
Well, they're obviously in the right :)
> and be able to re-add the block without fear
They could fix that by improving their OPSEC. So as to not be so easily threatened.
But you'd significantly help the legal case of those claiming it is by trying to obfuscate that you're doing so; they would argue in court it's an implicit admission you "knew it was illegal."
So you'd argue in reply that although you maintain that it's legal, you knew that it'd likely be something that bad actors would file frivolous suit over. Even when you win, being hauled into court is incredibly disruptive.
Moreover, the DMCA covers unauthorised access to copyrighted content, and the ad blocker cannot claim ownership of the ROT13'ed domain name, just as the domain name itself is not copyrightable.
In theory the ad blocker could use a more complicated scheme to obfuscate their source code, but I'm not sure whether they could combine a "do not de-obfuscate this code" rule with an open source / Free Software license.
It's interesting to compare this to Second Amendment arguments. Do ad blockers block ads, or do users? Do users have a right to keep and bear ad blockers? Of course it's silly, and ad blockers are passive tools, but there are some striking parallels.
Imagine a DVDCSS-like system that used remote servers to convey permission and defaulted to ALLOW. Would users who unplugged their DVD players from the Internet be guilty of circumvention? Now imagine that DVDs for said player were handed out freely on the street, stuffed into people's mailboxes, etc. Would people who played those DVDs without connecting their players to the Internet be guilty of circumvention?
That's the same thing, in principle, that's going on here. Claiming that it's circumvention (whoever makes that claim; I don't know if you are) is preposterous. This is obviously an abuse of the DMCA (not hard to do, considering the DMCA itself is an abuse, but I digress).
The admiral website has a copy of a notice [1] if you are interested.
[1] https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-...
In that case, we are legally require to update all DNS servers' entries to remove that name permanently. :-)
Or alias it to 0.0.0.0 !!!
instead of blocking requests, replace the domain name with something funnily invalid, with a play on words on each original domain. then in case of any dmca, claim satire fair use.
it would make patchs review much more fun too!