5 ms·

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 buy

by 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.
- patmcc 11y ago
  >>Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Is there any case law to back that up? That's a very odd reading of copyright law. Would you make the same claim about listening to a radio, viewing a television broadcast, or reading a poster?
  - bad_user 11y ago
    https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-t... https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/decision-23jan04-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/decision-23jan04...
- unprepare 11y ago
  >there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website Except for the fact that it is being purposefully made available to the general public.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Not sure what you're trying to say, as all copyrighted works are made available to the general public, that being the whole purpose of copyright law.
    - unprepare 11y ago
      I do enter into an agreement when i go to a theater to watch a movie - I have paid for a ticket to a specific movie, consented to the business' rules (who in turn had to agree to the creators rules), etc. On the other hand, when i view a billboard, i have entered into no such agreement. I just moved my eyes and there it was - i consented to nothing, i purchased nothing, i am under no obligation to take any action or to behave within certain defined parameters. Since a website is made publicly viewable, it is not at all like a movie, it is instead like a billboard. I enter no contract when i move my gaze onto a public resource (be it digitally or physically). Or should I start putting up billboards with cameras tracking license plates and MPH, with fine print saying you agree to be physically tracked using my billboards and allowing me to send all collected information to the police and advertisers? And then when you block my camera, i will sue you for breaking the TOS of my billboard, that you consented to by seeing the billboard.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
I think that many people on both sides of the game have become a bit too too cocky.
DannyBee 11y ago
Errr, your argument does not make logical sense. The thing you would go after would be the adblockers for facilitating breach of contract. I don't see how you could ever get to "a language then used to break the contract", nor is this a logical argument. Ie if you are using it to try to demonstrate some kind of absurdity, it doesn't work to do that. Facilitating breach is also not a thing, the closest thing is known as "tortious interference". Pretty much everywhere, it must be knowing and intentional (In the sense that you know it breaches that contract and are aiming it at breaching that contract). There are a small number of jurisdictions that allow negligence claims, but those jurisdictions are crazy.

by soyiuz 11y ago

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.

patmcc 11y ago
>>Without a license, there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website, because the copyright law says so. Is there any case law to back that up? That's a very odd reading of copyright law. Would you make the same claim about listening to a radio, viewing a television broadcast, or reading a poster?
- bad_user 11y ago
  https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-t... https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/decision-23jan04-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/decision-23jan04...
unprepare 11y ago
>there's nothing giving you the right to visit a website Except for the fact that it is being purposefully made available to the general public.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Not sure what you're trying to say, as all copyrighted works are made available to the general public, that being the whole purpose of copyright law.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    I do enter into an agreement when i go to a theater to watch a movie - I have paid for a ticket to a specific movie, consented to the business' rules (who in turn had to agree to the creators rules), etc. On the other hand, when i view a billboard, i have entered into no such agreement. I just moved my eyes and there it was - i consented to nothing, i purchased nothing, i am under no obligation to take any action or to behave within certain defined parameters. Since a website is made publicly viewable, it is not at all like a movie, it is instead like a billboard. I enter no contract when i move my gaze onto a public resource (be it digitally or physically). Or should I start putting up billboards with cameras tracking license plates and MPH, with fine print saying you agree to be physically tracked using my billboards and allowing me to send all collected information to the police and advertisers? And then when you block my camera, i will sue you for breaking the TOS of my billboard, that you consented to by seeing the billboard.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

I think that many people on both sides of the game have become a bit too too cocky.

DannyBee 11y ago

Errr, your argument does not make logical sense. The thing you would go after would be the adblockers for facilitating breach of contract. I don't see how you could ever get to "a language then used to break the contract", nor is this a logical argument. Ie if you are using it to try to demonstrate some kind of absurdity, it doesn't work to do that. Facilitating breach is also not a thing, the closest thing is known as "tortious interference". Pretty much everywhere, it must be knowing and intentional (In the sense that you know it breaches that contract and are aiming it at breaching that contract). There are a small number of jurisdictions that allow negligence claims, but those jurisdictions are crazy.