6 ms·

Are Adblock companies breaking the law?

37 points by DanBlake 11y ago

Raed667 11y ago
Easy, one argument response: The user should be in control of the code executed on his computer.
- blainesch 11y ago
  Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running the code.
  - exo762 11y ago
    No really. Bot was executed on user's machine, but effects of bot work were reaching well beyond user's machine, destroying economics of game, user experience and company profits.
    - aggronn 11y ago
      Are you saying that ad blocking is a victimless 'crime' that doesn't have any effects outside of your computer?
  - nv-vn 11y ago
    I don't think so. The code of the bot is interfering with the actions of a remote server. An ad blocker works locally.
    - kllrnohj 11y ago
      No, it's the other way around. The bot worked locally (simulating input). Ad blocks interfere with the actions of a remote server.
    - oh_sigh 11y ago
      Ad blocking is interfering with the actions of a remote server, for example by blocking the expected transmission of tracking and analytic data.
      - nv-vn 11y ago
        Except the bot is causing things to be written to the server. The ad blocker is only blocking requests from happening (and those requests occur on the client side, in JavaScript). It's not blocking the transmission from the server's end at all, it's only stopping an event from happening locally.
  - pdonis 11y ago
    And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server. In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binaries. Blizzard might actually be able to get away with this because their users are paying customers who really, really want to play their game. In the case of a website running ads, this would mean forcing viewers to run clients that were known by the website to not contain ad blockers; for example, the website could force viewers to run signed browser binaries. Of course, no site that runs ads will try this, because it would just mean nobody would view their site. Notice that sites whose users actually need to go there to do business, such as banking sites or Amazon, don't complain about ad blockers. It's only sites whose business model depends on ads that do. That should be a "here's your sign" moment to ad-supported sites that their business model is not sustainable. It should not be an excuse to sue ad blockers.
    - DanBlake 11y ago
      You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system, Its 100% reaction based, like anti virus software.
      - pdonis 11y ago
        > You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. Well, that would certainly make it harder for Blizzard to stop cheating. But not impossible; they would just need to require clients to have locked down memory. That is probably impractical (for example, it might well mean they would have to sell their own locked down client devices), but it's not impossible. > You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system Sure you can. But the system might not be practical.
    - bloaf 11y ago
      Ad blocking is not a necessarily a browser-based thing. Even if they were to mandate a blocker-free browser, you could block ads with a firewall, by running your own DNS, or through the HOSTS file.
  - hijiri 11y ago
    Yes, the ToS restricting how the user uses the software should not exist in the first place. Keeping control of your computing is the core idea of free software.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  The user is under no obligation to use either the website nor the ad block software. As a result, your argument is irrelevant.
  - Raed667 11y ago
    And yet websites keep serving users who are running ad-blocking software even when they're under no obligation to serve content unless it is removed. The websites are accepting this model because any other will just push users away.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- bad_user 11y ago
  That's an emotional response IMHO. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the outcome of this is predictable. For applications and games it is illegal to circumvent DRM protections meant to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution in the EU. In the USA it's also illegal, although jail-breaking general-purpose computing devices is legal since 2015. In general usage of software is covered by EULA terms that are not negotiable and enforced by copyright law. If you don't like the EULA, then you can choose to not use the software in question. Of course an EULA cannot override copyright or contract law. Plus many companies claim that software licensing is not a sale, hence the first-sale doctrine does not apply. The EULA for Microsoft Windows famously says that Windows is licensed and not sold. But overall, in order to use a piece of software you have to respect both the EULA it is distributed under and copyright law. Because without that EULA there's nothing giving you the right to use said software, because the copyright law says so. In other words, while you may be justified in saying that the user should choose what to run on his computer, modifying an app or a web interface to load just what you want and discard anything else is probably copyright infringement. And even if it's not, though I doubt it, then this can be solved with a simple piece of code that blocks browsers with ad-blockers, in which case blocking such pieces of code from running is definitely illegal.
  - Raed667 11y ago
    I think that the clear distinction is: - In the first case you're gaining access to a content you don't have the right to. Thus braking the law. - In the second case, you're merely discarding some content that doesn't interest you. I'm afraid that the kind of argument above will lead us to a dystopia like the one pictured in Black Mirror - Fifteen Million Merits[0]. [0]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089049/?ref_=ttep_ep2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089049/?ref_=ttep_ep2
Zikes 11y ago
Website terms of service are not viewable until you have already accessed the web site. Unless the web sites give users an interstitial page wherein they explicitly click a button to agree to the terms of service before proceeding, then they would otherwise fall under Browse Wrap[1], for which most existing legal precedence favors the consumer rather than the web site. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
- zecg 11y ago
  I use ublock origin to hide the wrapper and the cookie agreement, I never click I agree.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    I'm fairly certain that knowingly circumventing a TOS agreement doesn't make you immune to it.
    - adrusi 11y ago
      If your bank sends you a credit card contract and you don't sign it but their broken system lets you use their service anyway, are you liable for the terms of that contract?
      - DannyBee 11y ago
        Generally, yes, if you knew it existed.
    - jbob2000 11y ago
      He doesn't know that he has circumvented it, it is never shown to him.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  This isn't quite right. It varies, but in general, if you continue to use the site, knowing such a TOS exists, you may be bound by it (you may not, it depends on the terms, etc). You would get a pass on "the first time you accessed the web site", not "every time you did it afterwards knowing there was a TOS". This all assumes you noticed it exists. There is another question of "can i be bound by the TOS if i didn't ever know it existed" vs "can i be bound by a TOS if i didn't bother to read and assent to the terms explicitly". The answer to the first is "mostly no" the answer to the second is "mostly yes" (but again, depends on the terms of the TOS). This is what actual precedent is, anyway ;) The next question that gets asked is basically "what if i just lie and said i never noticed it, what do they have to prove", and the answer is "if you are willing to lie, this is a worthless discussion to have".
trebor 11y ago
Just a moment, is the argument stating that an implicit contract (that is, the Terms of Service) which I was not required to accept to browse the website, can make using an Ad Blocker illegal? What about: malware distributed through ad networks, offensive advertisements (the original reason I installed an ad blocker!), and so many advertisements that a midrange spec'd machine staggers when scrolling or navigating?
- anowlcalledjosh 11y ago
  By browsing the website, the argument is that you implicitly accepted the ToS. It's legally shaky, and generally the ToS or a link to them must have been provably shown to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
  - spinlock 11y ago
    How far can you take that? Can a spammer put up a TOS claiming that by accessing their site you are agreeing to host their botnet?
    - anowlcalledjosh 11y ago
      Presumably, but the botnet is still likely to be used for illegal purposes, which will get someone (hopefully the spammer, but IANAL) prosecuted.
  - trebor 11y ago
    In a court case for hacking, Zappos tried to invoke their browse wrap ToS clause for arbitration, which the court struck down. It was unenforceable for these reasons: • Zappos placed a link to its Terms of Use between the middle and bottom of each page, only visible if a user scrolls down. • If the Zappos.com homepage is printed to hard copy, the link appears on page 3 of 4. • The Terms of Use link was the same size, font, and color as most other non-significant links. • The website did not direct a user to the Terms of Use when creating an account, logging into an existing account, or making a purchase. This describes Terms of Use links for virtually all sites, even today. I'd say that this makes browse wrap very shaky, legally. [1]: http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-use-on-your-website-an-enforceable-agreement/ http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-... [2]: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2012cv00325/88233/21/ https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada... Personally, I find any site assuming that their terms of service is enforceable to be shaky because EULA law is also traditionally shaky. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
zombees 11y ago
There is one important difference with comparing MDY to adblock though. MDY made software specifically for WoW. Adblock does not make software specifically to target Business Insider or anyone else. Further, if this precedent was set, you could possibly go after people using out of date browsers that can't display your ad content perfectly or viewing text only or a million other ways in which ads wouldn't be left in their pristine state.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  Those million other ways are missing two important principles of tortuous intereference: - intent - knowledge that they're interfering with a contract.
  - zombees 11y ago
    Yes, but you could probably make a case for sending DMCA takedowns to the chromium repo because someone doesn't like that the old versions "circumvent" the ads at which point the ball is in their court. If they fail to take action, they now have knowledge and potentially "intent"
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  Adblocks work by maintaining white/black lists. As such, they inherently are targeting specific URLs.
  - zombees 11y ago
    The url's in the lists are (mostly) ad companies though. It just doesn't send the http requests to url's on the list. I could set up a website out of the blue and have it serve ads that would be successfully blocked by any adblock on day one without it knowing about my site specifically
- DanBlake 11y ago
  Adblockers have specific rules for specific websites. In fact, adblock plus even has a special rule set to bypass blocks set up by websites to stop adblock users.
baddox 11y ago
If it's illegal for me to choose which network requests my computer makes and/or accepts, or illegal for someone to create software to help me do that, I think that law is ludicrous and I want it to be changed.
- SamReidHughes 11y ago
  If you want to control your network requests, then don't agree to a contract that gives up such rights.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Sounds good, although I've never agreed to or even seen such a contract, and I don't know anyone who has.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  I've been saying the same since the WoWGlider case - they basically just made a program to give users full control over software running on their own computers. Sure, control which violated a license, but can you really write a license to take control over something someone else owns outright? If they loaned you the computer, they might have an argument, but if you own it, it seems insane. It is ludicrous that you can't control execution on your own CPU without their permission or even simply peek and poke a byte in your own RAM... I own my hardware and I exert my rights to it every chance I get, but I break the law often in doing so. Whether it's flipping a bit to bypass that anti-VM protection, play a game with 3rd party mods needed to make it work on modern hardware or use the full capabilities of the phone I own outright. These things are all blatantly against copyright law in one or many ways, yet I engage in them daily. Ludicrous may actually be a generous way to put it.
seanalltogether 11y ago
But the WoW bot was interacting with Blizzards servers and sending changeable actions that could affect the state of their servers. It feels like there's much more to this then a simple TOS.
- zombees 11y ago
  More important is that it's designed to interact with blizzards servers. Adblock is a generic utility
  - michaelbuckbee 11y ago
    Different Adblockers work in different ways, some block based on size/shape of images (IAB standards) but the most prevalent method is regex'd URL identification to known ad+tracking sites.
    - zombees 11y ago
      True, but the sites it's working against aren't the content providers, just the advertisers. As such, it's not intending to help you violate anyone's TOS in particular (except maybe and advertiser).
- DanBlake 11y ago
  It was a local app, not remote. Even if I concende that it was remote, what about a wallhack for counterstrike? Should that be legal since it has zero server effect?
smackfu 11y ago
If a site's terms of service said that access with IE was not allowed, and someone used IE to access the site, could the site sue Microsoft? What about if IE was installed by someone else, are they interfering with the site's contract?
Zikes 11y ago
Can we make a "User TOS" standard wherein a link to a user's personal Terms of Service is embedded in, say, a "User-TOS" GET header, which could include terms implying that by continuing to serve content to the user the web site accepts the user's terms? Preferably the TOS would include verbiage to continue blocking ads, to forbid the use of tracking cookies, and other such pro-consumer terms.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I just realized I just proposed a more complicated version of "Do Not Track", for all the good that did.
  - tajen 11y ago
    Along with the X-I-DONT-WANT-YOUR-APP-THANKS header ? I'm not actually joking, our protocols could embed many more use-cases than they currently do.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      Ideally that could be included in the User TOS. Think of it like the Creative Commons model, a lot of standardized information is contained in the string "CC-BY-NC-SA", even though it's been customized for a particular person's use case. In this instance, you could have TOS-NA-NC, where NA is "No App" and NC is "No Tracking Cookie".
- thwarted 11y ago
  There's always Platform for Privacy Preferences[0], which is kind of what you suggest, but specifically in the context of where the TOS/site policy talks about user identity/information. It ultimately ended up being more of a thorn in the side of server operators because, IMO, of the way Microsoft implemented the UI in IE's preferences (and that few other browsers actually honored it). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P
  - Zikes 11y ago
robotkilla 11y ago
I wish someone would start a privacy religion and use it to demand privacy as a religious right.
Aldo_MX 11y ago
It should also be illegal to collect information from users without their explicit consent. So what are they trying to achieve?
- scriptproof 11y ago
  That is the purpose of this cookie consent banner ublock removes too!!!
efaref 11y ago
No. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines).
gmisra 11y ago
IANAL, but this feels like a good thing, that these issues are being hammered out in the courts. I think most people would find the idea that simply viewing a single webpage constitutes a contract with obligations to be unreasonable (as opposed to subscribing to a gaming service). If publishers want to be explicit about forcing me to read/tldr and acknowledge a terms & conditions document, and then provide me with full transparency into what information is collected, and full agency over where else that information is transmitted, then yes, let us definitely engage in a contract. But the former destroys pageviews (a poor proxy for engagement anyway), and the latter will erode the massive grey-market in user-data and targeted advertising. From where I'm sitting, I don't think it's in publishers' best interests to shine a bright light on the current publisher/reader relationship. However, as history shows, entrenched institutions have plenty of influence (cash) to transform a beneficial-to-them status-quo into "the law", e.g. when DVRs came out and programmatic commercial skipping was deemed to be illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_skipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_skipping Now might be a good time for some of us to donate to the EFF https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate
intrasight 11y ago
How would DCMA even apply to something "open" like HTML?
- DanBlake 11y ago
  If you write a huge javascript library and started selling it, then someone stole it and released it for free- you would issue a DMCA because you own that code. Just because its HTML doesnt make it 'not free'
  - intrasight 11y ago
    What you are describing is pre-DMCA copyright. What DCMA added was laws which add sanctions against reverse-engineering closed systems.
    - Zikes 11y ago
      Amongst other things, including the new avenues for filing breaches of copyright against web sites and content providers.
soyiuz 11y ago
First, it is not clear if a web "surfer" is in a contractual relationship with a random site s/he visits in a way that a Blizzard gamer is (by the virtue of buying the game and clicking through the TOS). Second, Blizzard game bots use a part of the company's codebase, where the ad blocker works solely in my own browser. They do not rely on proprietary code that belongs to someone else. Finally, where the Blizzard bot is made with the single purpose of violating Blizzard's TOS, the ad blocker has many legitimate uses, outside of any aggrieved party. By this token, could we not go after Oracle or Mozilla for facilitating the breach of contract in maintaining JavaScript (a language then used to break the contract)?
- ultramancool 11y ago
  > By this token, could we not go after Oracle or Mozilla for facilitating the breach of contract in maintaining JavaScript (a language then used to break the contract)? Excellent point, I think what we may see is that adblocker are perfectly legal, but those lists of ad sites to block, not so much. Ad blockers with tor, bittorrent and rss capabilities coming soon may be headed our way soon.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Legally speaking, you either agree to whatever license the website has in place, or you've got no right to view its content. Of course, such a license cannot have provisions that conflict with copyright or contract law and so doctrines like the fair use applies, etc. Of course, you could say that you can't read any license, or any privacy policy and you can't observe any unwanted behavior without first loading that website. But then again, people could build and use an extension that blocks websites and warns people of unwanted characteristics. But that's not what people are doing. > Second, Blizzard game bots use a part of the company's codebase, where the ad blocker works solely in my own browser. They do not rely on proprietary code that belongs to someone else. That's a weak argument. Blizzard games do not run directly over hardware, but on top of an operating system that exposes high level APIs, such as DirectX or OpenGL, being in many ways just as high-level as the browser is.
oldmanjay 11y ago
Good luck forcing me to make the requests you think I should be forced to make, marketers. Good luck indeed.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
If I am going into kitchen during the commercial break then am I breaking the law?
hartator 11y ago
> do that bad thing anyways. It's a bit of a moralist jugdment. You can argue advertising companies are breaking the law as well. (Privacy, malware distribution, ads for gambling, no clear sepration between ads and content...)
Canada 11y ago
Take away ad blockers and I will start pirating news. That is, extract and redistribute without ads. I'm already tempted to start doing it. Even with noscript and adblocker plus the news sites are annoying to deal with.
- toddynho 11y ago
  Or you could just start using Flipboard, Instapaper, Pocket, or the 17 other news reading apps.
vox_mollis 11y ago
All this absurd hand-wringing about adblockers would be very easily addressed if content providers would, collectively just offer paid subscription options. Say, a Spotify Premium for the written word. I don't like ads, and I'm willing to pay to not see them. But nobody seems to want to take my money.
- Zikes 11y ago
  The problem with that model is that there are too many competing companies. As it is, you have to subscribe to half a dozen online publications if you don't want to hit a paywall for every other link posted to HN. But even if there were a single service to manage those subscriptions, I would lament the monopoly. Honestly, I think ads are the solution, but only if they drop all the anti-consumer BS associated with them.
DannyBee 11y ago
So, it's very funny to look at some of the reactions here. For a group of people who seem to also think they would be great at self-study law ;P, most of them are mostly knee-jerk and come out to "i don't think i should be bound by this, so clearly the law says what i think" or "i think this is a bad idea, so clearly, the article is wrong", instead of making arguments based on actual law and precedent, or even something sane.
- chrhine 11y ago
  "I don't want it to be illegal, therefore it isn't. That's the way it works."
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  Is there a lot of current applicable law on this? It seems a new area in which the laws haven't really kept up, thus the disconnect
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    There are at least 40+ cases on it. Now: do those cases form some coherent set of rules? No. But there is actually a lot of law on it ;)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
212d1d 11y ago
Do you not have to 'accept' the TOS prior to using a Blizzard bot? I am not told to accept (or even view) the Business Insider's TOS prior to use. IANAL, both it's obvious that parties must agree for a contract to be valid. It can not be implied. I can not hang a mortgage contract on my wall in the bank and bypass the need for individual acceptance.
CodeSheikh 11y ago
How about publishers start spending more on R&D and less on useless law suits. Ditch the whole ad-network/ ad-exchange model and start offering native ads. Ads that are deeply embedded in content. Sure they would have to hire more designers and content writers to come up with these ads more frequently but it might be the right and/or only alteration of business model publishers have to opt for. Partnering up with third party businesses directly and ditching the useless middle man (aka ad exchanges) would be better.
makecheck 11y ago
On the one hand, it's not reasonable to treat "blocking" as the problem that needs a law. Sanity-preservation aside, when ISPs can charge people through the nose for the amount of data being used, some form of blocking software IS REQUIRED. (If sites stop auto-running full-screen video ads with sound, or ISPs stop being complete thugs, then we can talk.) On the other hand, to the extent that people are more willing to pay ad-blocking companies than the web sites that provide content, I think something needs to change. Ad-blocking companies seem to earn a lot of revenue, disproportionate to their value-add. Compared to all the complex products in the world trying to make a buck, the DOM analyzers and regex lists in ad-blockers are hardly ground-breaking things worthy of massive income. They benefit primarily from having a huge audience. I've commented before[1] on how protocols might cage data use and scripting in a reasonable way. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10407810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10407810
Sideloader 11y ago
The advertising model is, among other things, transforming the once vibrant internet media landscape into a cesspool of floundering and money losing companies chasing clicks and eyeballs in a desperate race to the bottom. Interesting and unique content is jettisoned for the most banal, formulaic click-baiting bullshit imaginable. The sooner the ad supported internet dies, the better. I have no problem paying for access to quality content and am more than wiling to pay for more of it. But if my only is option consists of being inundated with annoying and intrusive ads at every turn, I will block them at every turn and feel not a pang of guilt and regret. It's a bit rich for organizations that promote self-interest and free markets to harangue their customers with lectures on the immorality of ad blocking. I am acting out of self-interest when I choose to block ads and the market should have gotten the hint by now that the public (i.e., customers or potential customers) put with ads as a necessary evil - at the best of times. This is not the best of times: internet ads are intrusive, hog resources, are served by dodgy outfits, present security risks, are an eyesore, and often flog stuff that I will never ever buy. Therefore, I block ads q Come on , is this pitiful whining about the evils of ad blocking really coming from the same is w tech industry that touts adaptability, innovation and the willingness to try new things as core strengths? The market has spoken and it has said loudly and clearly "ads suck, dude!" Therefor, I actively and with not even a pang of guilt, block ads. On both by mobile devices and big computer I use open source host file tweaks rather than a "commercial" plugins (Adblock, AdBlock Plus). Way less bloat, more robust and no backroom deals selling whitelist space to advertisers. Jaron Lanier has been widely criticized, even ridiculed, for his, admittedly convoluted, micropayment system concepts but at least he's thinking about the possibilities. Because the ad serving model is doomed to a slow death by ever diminishing returns. Now is the time to innovate. Last word goes to Lanier and his succinct take on the, heh, bad taste left by an ad driven world: “Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one’s anus to one’s mouth.”
falcolas 11y ago
If I provide my os with a list of domains not to make requests to (via a hosts file) is the OS provider doing something illegal? After all, they knew it could be used to circumvent connections required by bits of software. Another legal grey area with potential unintended consequences.

37 points by DanBlake 11y ago

Raed667 11y ago

Easy, one argument response: The user should be in control of the code executed on his computer.

blainesch 11y ago
Couldn't the same argument be used for the blizzard bot? One is more intentionally telling users to break the TOS, but at the end of the day the user is running the code.
- exo762 11y ago
  No really. Bot was executed on user's machine, but effects of bot work were reaching well beyond user's machine, destroying economics of game, user experience and company profits.
  - aggronn 11y ago
    Are you saying that ad blocking is a victimless 'crime' that doesn't have any effects outside of your computer?
- nv-vn 11y ago
  I don't think so. The code of the bot is interfering with the actions of a remote server. An ad blocker works locally.
  - kllrnohj 11y ago
    No, it's the other way around. The bot worked locally (simulating input). Ad blocks interfere with the actions of a remote server.
  - oh_sigh 11y ago
    Ad blocking is interfering with the actions of a remote server, for example by blocking the expected transmission of tracking and analytic data.
    - nv-vn 11y ago
      Except the bot is causing things to be written to the server. The ad blocker is only blocking requests from happening (and those requests occur on the client side, in JavaScript). It's not blocking the transmission from the server's end at all, it's only stopping an event from happening locally.
- pdonis 11y ago
  And the remedy is the same in both cases: if the provider really doesn't want people using clients that do certain things, the provider needs to control access so that only clients that don't do those things can access their server. In the case of Blizzard, this would mean forcing gamers to run clients that were known by Blizzard to not contain bots; for example, Blizzard could force users to use signed client binaries. Blizzard might actually be able to get away with this because their users are paying customers who really, really want to play their game. In the case of a website running ads, this would mean forcing viewers to run clients that were known by the website to not contain ad blockers; for example, the website could force viewers to run signed browser binaries. Of course, no site that runs ads will try this, because it would just mean nobody would view their site. Notice that sites whose users actually need to go there to do business, such as banking sites or Amazon, don't complain about ad blockers. It's only sites whose business model depends on ads that do. That should be a "here's your sign" moment to ad-supported sites that their business model is not sustainable. It should not be an excuse to sue ad blockers.
  - DanBlake 11y ago
    You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system, Its 100% reaction based, like anti virus software.
    - pdonis 11y ago
      > You have no idea how cheating in games works. They dont touch the exe, they touch the memory. Well, that would certainly make it harder for Blizzard to stop cheating. But not impossible; they would just need to require clients to have locked down memory. That is probably impractical (for example, it might well mean they would have to sell their own locked down client devices), but it's not impossible. > You can not stop game hacks with any first strike system Sure you can. But the system might not be practical.
  - bloaf 11y ago
    Ad blocking is not a necessarily a browser-based thing. Even if they were to mandate a blocker-free browser, you could block ads with a firewall, by running your own DNS, or through the HOSTS file.
- hijiri 11y ago
  Yes, the ToS restricting how the user uses the software should not exist in the first place. Keeping control of your computing is the core idea of free software.
kllrnohj 11y ago
The user is under no obligation to use either the website nor the ad block software. As a result, your argument is irrelevant.
- Raed667 11y ago
  And yet websites keep serving users who are running ad-blocking software even when they're under no obligation to serve content unless it is removed. The websites are accepting this model because any other will just push users away.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bad_user 11y ago
That's an emotional response IMHO. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the outcome of this is predictable. For applications and games it is illegal to circumvent DRM protections meant to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution in the EU. In the USA it's also illegal, although jail-breaking general-purpose computing devices is legal since 2015. In general usage of software is covered by EULA terms that are not negotiable and enforced by copyright law. If you don't like the EULA, then you can choose to not use the software in question. Of course an EULA cannot override copyright or contract law. Plus many companies claim that software licensing is not a sale, hence the first-sale doctrine does not apply. The EULA for Microsoft Windows famously says that Windows is licensed and not sold. But overall, in order to use a piece of software you have to respect both the EULA it is distributed under and copyright law. Because without that EULA there's nothing giving you the right to use said software, because the copyright law says so. In other words, while you may be justified in saying that the user should choose what to run on his computer, modifying an app or a web interface to load just what you want and discard anything else is probably copyright infringement. And even if it's not, though I doubt it, then this can be solved with a simple piece of code that blocks browsers with ad-blockers, in which case blocking such pieces of code from running is definitely illegal.
- Raed667 11y ago
  I think that the clear distinction is: - In the first case you're gaining access to a content you don't have the right to. Thus braking the law. - In the second case, you're merely discarding some content that doesn't interest you. I'm afraid that the kind of argument above will lead us to a dystopia like the one pictured in Black Mirror - Fifteen Million Merits[0]. [0]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089049/?ref_=ttep_ep2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2089049/?ref_=ttep_ep2

Zikes 11y ago

Website terms of service are not viewable until you have already accessed the web site. Unless the web sites give users an interstitial page wherein they explicitly click a button to agree to the terms of service before proceeding, then they would otherwise fall under Browse Wrap[1], for which most existing legal precedence favors the consumer rather than the web site. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap

zecg 11y ago
I use ublock origin to hide the wrapper and the cookie agreement, I never click I agree.
- Zikes 11y ago
  I'm fairly certain that knowingly circumventing a TOS agreement doesn't make you immune to it.
  - adrusi 11y ago
    If your bank sends you a credit card contract and you don't sign it but their broken system lets you use their service anyway, are you liable for the terms of that contract?
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      Generally, yes, if you knew it existed.
  - jbob2000 11y ago
    He doesn't know that he has circumvented it, it is never shown to him.
DannyBee 11y ago
This isn't quite right. It varies, but in general, if you continue to use the site, knowing such a TOS exists, you may be bound by it (you may not, it depends on the terms, etc). You would get a pass on "the first time you accessed the web site", not "every time you did it afterwards knowing there was a TOS". This all assumes you noticed it exists. There is another question of "can i be bound by the TOS if i didn't ever know it existed" vs "can i be bound by a TOS if i didn't bother to read and assent to the terms explicitly". The answer to the first is "mostly no" the answer to the second is "mostly yes" (but again, depends on the terms of the TOS). This is what actual precedent is, anyway ;) The next question that gets asked is basically "what if i just lie and said i never noticed it, what do they have to prove", and the answer is "if you are willing to lie, this is a worthless discussion to have".

trebor 11y ago

Just a moment, is the argument stating that an implicit contract (that is, the Terms of Service) which I was not required to accept to browse the website, can make using an Ad Blocker illegal? What about: malware distributed through ad networks, offensive advertisements (the original reason I installed an ad blocker!), and so many advertisements that a midrange spec'd machine staggers when scrolling or navigating?

anowlcalledjosh 11y ago
By browsing the website, the argument is that you implicitly accepted the ToS. It's legally shaky, and generally the ToS or a link to them must have been provably shown to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap
- spinlock 11y ago
  How far can you take that? Can a spammer put up a TOS claiming that by accessing their site you are agreeing to host their botnet?
  - anowlcalledjosh 11y ago
    Presumably, but the botnet is still likely to be used for illegal purposes, which will get someone (hopefully the spammer, but IANAL) prosecuted.
- trebor 11y ago
  In a court case for hacking, Zappos tried to invoke their browse wrap ToS clause for arbitration, which the court struck down. It was unenforceable for these reasons: • Zappos placed a link to its Terms of Use between the middle and bottom of each page, only visible if a user scrolls down. • If the Zappos.com homepage is printed to hard copy, the link appears on page 3 of 4. • The Terms of Use link was the same size, font, and color as most other non-significant links. • The website did not direct a user to the Terms of Use when creating an account, logging into an existing account, or making a purchase. This describes Terms of Use links for virtually all sites, even today. I'd say that this makes browse wrap very shaky, legally. [1]: http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-use-on-your-website-an-enforceable-agreement/ http://www.cairncross.com/eatdrinkshopstay/are-the-terms-of-... [2]: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2012cv00325/88233/21/ https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada... Personally, I find any site assuming that their terms of service is enforceable to be shaky because EULA law is also traditionally shaky. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

zombees 11y ago

There is one important difference with comparing MDY to adblock though. MDY made software specifically for WoW. Adblock does not make software specifically to target Business Insider or anyone else. Further, if this precedent was set, you could possibly go after people using out of date browsers that can't display your ad content perfectly or viewing text only or a million other ways in which ads wouldn't be left in their pristine state.

bryanlarsen 11y ago
Those million other ways are missing two important principles of tortuous intereference: - intent - knowledge that they're interfering with a contract.
- zombees 11y ago
  Yes, but you could probably make a case for sending DMCA takedowns to the chromium repo because someone doesn't like that the old versions "circumvent" the ads at which point the ball is in their court. If they fail to take action, they now have knowledge and potentially "intent"
kllrnohj 11y ago
Adblocks work by maintaining white/black lists. As such, they inherently are targeting specific URLs.
- zombees 11y ago
  The url's in the lists are (mostly) ad companies though. It just doesn't send the http requests to url's on the list. I could set up a website out of the blue and have it serve ads that would be successfully blocked by any adblock on day one without it knowing about my site specifically
DanBlake 11y ago
Adblockers have specific rules for specific websites. In fact, adblock plus even has a special rule set to bypass blocks set up by websites to stop adblock users.

baddox 11y ago

If it's illegal for me to choose which network requests my computer makes and/or accepts, or illegal for someone to create software to help me do that, I think that law is ludicrous and I want it to be changed.

SamReidHughes 11y ago
If you want to control your network requests, then don't agree to a contract that gives up such rights.
- baddox 11y ago
  Sounds good, although I've never agreed to or even seen such a contract, and I don't know anyone who has.
ultramancool 11y ago
I've been saying the same since the WoWGlider case - they basically just made a program to give users full control over software running on their own computers. Sure, control which violated a license, but can you really write a license to take control over something someone else owns outright? If they loaned you the computer, they might have an argument, but if you own it, it seems insane. It is ludicrous that you can't control execution on your own CPU without their permission or even simply peek and poke a byte in your own RAM... I own my hardware and I exert my rights to it every chance I get, but I break the law often in doing so. Whether it's flipping a bit to bypass that anti-VM protection, play a game with 3rd party mods needed to make it work on modern hardware or use the full capabilities of the phone I own outright. These things are all blatantly against copyright law in one or many ways, yet I engage in them daily. Ludicrous may actually be a generous way to put it.

seanalltogether 11y ago

But the WoW bot was interacting with Blizzards servers and sending changeable actions that could affect the state of their servers. It feels like there's much more to this then a simple TOS.

zombees 11y ago
More important is that it's designed to interact with blizzards servers. Adblock is a generic utility
- michaelbuckbee 11y ago
  Different Adblockers work in different ways, some block based on size/shape of images (IAB standards) but the most prevalent method is regex'd URL identification to known ad+tracking sites.
  - zombees 11y ago
    True, but the sites it's working against aren't the content providers, just the advertisers. As such, it's not intending to help you violate anyone's TOS in particular (except maybe and advertiser).
DanBlake 11y ago
It was a local app, not remote. Even if I concende that it was remote, what about a wallhack for counterstrike? Should that be legal since it has zero server effect?

smackfu 11y ago

If a site's terms of service said that access with IE was not allowed, and someone used IE to access the site, could the site sue Microsoft? What about if IE was installed by someone else, are they interfering with the site's contract?

Zikes 11y ago

Can we make a "User TOS" standard wherein a link to a user's personal Terms of Service is embedded in, say, a "User-TOS" GET header, which could include terms implying that by continuing to serve content to the user the web site accepts the user's terms? Preferably the TOS would include verbiage to continue blocking ads, to forbid the use of tracking cookies, and other such pro-consumer terms.

Zikes 11y ago
I just realized I just proposed a more complicated version of "Do Not Track", for all the good that did.
- tajen 11y ago
  Along with the X-I-DONT-WANT-YOUR-APP-THANKS header ? I'm not actually joking, our protocols could embed many more use-cases than they currently do.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    Ideally that could be included in the User TOS. Think of it like the Creative Commons model, a lot of standardized information is contained in the string "CC-BY-NC-SA", even though it's been customized for a particular person's use case. In this instance, you could have TOS-NA-NC, where NA is "No App" and NC is "No Tracking Cookie".
thwarted 11y ago
There's always Platform for Privacy Preferences[0], which is kind of what you suggest, but specifically in the context of where the TOS/site policy talks about user identity/information. It ultimately ended up being more of a thorn in the side of server operators because, IMO, of the way Microsoft implemented the UI in IE's preferences (and that few other browsers actually honored it). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P3P
- Zikes 11y ago

robotkilla 11y ago

I wish someone would start a privacy religion and use it to demand privacy as a religious right.

Aldo_MX 11y ago

It should also be illegal to collect information from users without their explicit consent. So what are they trying to achieve?

scriptproof 11y ago
That is the purpose of this cookie consent banner ublock removes too!!!

efaref 11y ago

No. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines).

gmisra 11y ago

IANAL, but this feels like a good thing, that these issues are being hammered out in the courts. I think most people would find the idea that simply viewing a single webpage constitutes a contract with obligations to be unreasonable (as opposed to subscribing to a gaming service). If publishers want to be explicit about forcing me to read/tldr and acknowledge a terms & conditions document, and then provide me with full transparency into what information is collected, and full agency over where else that information is transmitted, then yes, let us definitely engage in a contract. But the former destroys pageviews (a poor proxy for engagement anyway), and the latter will erode the massive grey-market in user-data and targeted advertising. From where I'm sitting, I don't think it's in publishers' best interests to shine a bright light on the current publisher/reader relationship. However, as history shows, entrenched institutions have plenty of influence (cash) to transform a beneficial-to-them status-quo into "the law", e.g. when DVRs came out and programmatic commercial skipping was deemed to be illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_skipping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_skipping Now might be a good time for some of us to donate to the EFF https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate

intrasight 11y ago

How would DCMA even apply to something "open" like HTML?

DanBlake 11y ago
If you write a huge javascript library and started selling it, then someone stole it and released it for free- you would issue a DMCA because you own that code. Just because its HTML doesnt make it 'not free'
- intrasight 11y ago
  What you are describing is pre-DMCA copyright. What DCMA added was laws which add sanctions against reverse-engineering closed systems.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    Amongst other things, including the new avenues for filing breaches of copyright against web sites and content providers.

soyiuz 11y ago

First, it is not clear if a web "surfer" is in a contractual relationship with a random site s/he visits in a way that a Blizzard gamer is (by the virtue of buying the game and clicking through the TOS). Second, Blizzard game bots use a part of the company's codebase, where the ad blocker works solely in my own browser. They do not rely on proprietary code that belongs to someone else. Finally, where the Blizzard bot is made with the single purpose of violating Blizzard's TOS, the ad blocker has many legitimate uses, outside of any aggrieved party. By this token, could we not go after Oracle or Mozilla for facilitating the breach of contract in maintaining JavaScript (a language then used to break the contract)?

ultramancool 11y ago
> By this token, could we not go after Oracle or Mozilla for facilitating the breach of contract in maintaining JavaScript (a language then used to break the contract)? Excellent point, I think what we may see is that adblocker are perfectly legal, but those lists of ad sites to block, not so much. Ad blockers with tor, bittorrent and rss capabilities coming soon may be headed our way soon.
bad_user 11y ago
Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Legally speaking, you either agree to whatever license the website has in place, or you've got no right to view its content. Of course, such a license cannot have provisions that conflict with copyright or contract law and so doctrines like the fair use applies, etc. Of course, you could say that you can't read any license, or any privacy policy and you can't observe any unwanted behavior without first loading that website. But then again, people could build and use an extension that blocks websites and warns people of unwanted characteristics. But that's not what people are doing. > Second, Blizzard game bots use a part of the company's codebase, where the ad blocker works solely in my own browser. They do not rely on proprietary code that belongs to someone else. That's a weak argument. Blizzard games do not run directly over hardware, but on top of an operating system that exposes high level APIs, such as DirectX or OpenGL, being in many ways just as high-level as the browser is.

oldmanjay 11y ago

Good luck forcing me to make the requests you think I should be forced to make, marketers. Good luck indeed.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

If I am going into kitchen during the commercial break then am I breaking the law?

hartator 11y ago

> do that bad thing anyways. It's a bit of a moralist jugdment. You can argue advertising companies are breaking the law as well. (Privacy, malware distribution, ads for gambling, no clear sepration between ads and content...)

Canada 11y ago

Take away ad blockers and I will start pirating news. That is, extract and redistribute without ads. I'm already tempted to start doing it. Even with noscript and adblocker plus the news sites are annoying to deal with.

toddynho 11y ago
Or you could just start using Flipboard, Instapaper, Pocket, or the 17 other news reading apps.

vox_mollis 11y ago

All this absurd hand-wringing about adblockers would be very easily addressed if content providers would, collectively just offer paid subscription options. Say, a Spotify Premium for the written word. I don't like ads, and I'm willing to pay to not see them. But nobody seems to want to take my money.

Zikes 11y ago
The problem with that model is that there are too many competing companies. As it is, you have to subscribe to half a dozen online publications if you don't want to hit a paywall for every other link posted to HN. But even if there were a single service to manage those subscriptions, I would lament the monopoly. Honestly, I think ads are the solution, but only if they drop all the anti-consumer BS associated with them.

DannyBee 11y ago

So, it's very funny to look at some of the reactions here. For a group of people who seem to also think they would be great at self-study law ;P, most of them are mostly knee-jerk and come out to "i don't think i should be bound by this, so clearly the law says what i think" or "i think this is a bad idea, so clearly, the article is wrong", instead of making arguments based on actual law and precedent, or even something sane.

chrhine 11y ago
"I don't want it to be illegal, therefore it isn't. That's the way it works."
CaptSpify 11y ago
Is there a lot of current applicable law on this? It seems a new area in which the laws haven't really kept up, thus the disconnect
- DannyBee 11y ago
  There are at least 40+ cases on it. Now: do those cases form some coherent set of rules? No. But there is actually a lot of law on it ;)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

212d1d 11y ago

Do you not have to 'accept' the TOS prior to using a Blizzard bot? I am not told to accept (or even view) the Business Insider's TOS prior to use. IANAL, both it's obvious that parties must agree for a contract to be valid. It can not be implied. I can not hang a mortgage contract on my wall in the bank and bypass the need for individual acceptance.

CodeSheikh 11y ago

How about publishers start spending more on R&D and less on useless law suits. Ditch the whole ad-network/ ad-exchange model and start offering native ads. Ads that are deeply embedded in content. Sure they would have to hire more designers and content writers to come up with these ads more frequently but it might be the right and/or only alteration of business model publishers have to opt for. Partnering up with third party businesses directly and ditching the useless middle man (aka ad exchanges) would be better.

makecheck 11y ago

On the one hand, it's not reasonable to treat "blocking" as the problem that needs a law. Sanity-preservation aside, when ISPs can charge people through the nose for the amount of data being used, some form of blocking software IS REQUIRED. (If sites stop auto-running full-screen video ads with sound, or ISPs stop being complete thugs, then we can talk.) On the other hand, to the extent that people are more willing to pay ad-blocking companies than the web sites that provide content, I think something needs to change. Ad-blocking companies seem to earn a lot of revenue, disproportionate to their value-add. Compared to all the complex products in the world trying to make a buck, the DOM analyzers and regex lists in ad-blockers are hardly ground-breaking things worthy of massive income. They benefit primarily from having a huge audience. I've commented before[1] on how protocols might cage data use and scripting in a reasonable way. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10407810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10407810

Sideloader 11y ago

The advertising model is, among other things, transforming the once vibrant internet media landscape into a cesspool of floundering and money losing companies chasing clicks and eyeballs in a desperate race to the bottom. Interesting and unique content is jettisoned for the most banal, formulaic click-baiting bullshit imaginable. The sooner the ad supported internet dies, the better. I have no problem paying for access to quality content and am more than wiling to pay for more of it. But if my only is option consists of being inundated with annoying and intrusive ads at every turn, I will block them at every turn and feel not a pang of guilt and regret. It's a bit rich for organizations that promote self-interest and free markets to harangue their customers with lectures on the immorality of ad blocking. I am acting out of self-interest when I choose to block ads and the market should have gotten the hint by now that the public (i.e., customers or potential customers) put with ads as a necessary evil - at the best of times. This is not the best of times: internet ads are intrusive, hog resources, are served by dodgy outfits, present security risks, are an eyesore, and often flog stuff that I will never ever buy. Therefore, I block ads q Come on , is this pitiful whining about the evils of ad blocking really coming from the same is w tech industry that touts adaptability, innovation and the willingness to try new things as core strengths? The market has spoken and it has said loudly and clearly "ads suck, dude!" Therefor, I actively and with not even a pang of guilt, block ads. On both by mobile devices and big computer I use open source host file tweaks rather than a "commercial" plugins (Adblock, AdBlock Plus). Way less bloat, more robust and no backroom deals selling whitelist space to advertisers. Jaron Lanier has been widely criticized, even ridiculed, for his, admittedly convoluted, micropayment system concepts but at least he's thinking about the possibilities. Because the ad serving model is doomed to a slow death by ever diminishing returns. Now is the time to innovate. Last word goes to Lanier and his succinct take on the, heh, bad taste left by an ad driven world: “Funding a civilization through advertising is like trying to get nutrition by connecting a tube from one’s anus to one’s mouth.”

falcolas 11y ago

If I provide my os with a list of domains not to make requests to (via a hosts file) is the OS provider doing something illegal? After all, they knew it could be used to circumvent connections required by bits of software. Another legal grey area with potential unintended consequences.