4 ms·

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

by Raed667 11y ago

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

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

by Raed667 11y ago

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

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