7 ms·

EasyList: Ad-serving domain removed due to DMCA takedown request

261 points by marksamman 9y ago

whitexn--g28h 9y ago
A copy of the request would be nice.
userbinator 9y ago
Thanks, just added it to my HOSTS file... I don't know if the Streisand Effect is going to happen with this one, but it seems very odd that the DMCA could even be applicable here. Edit: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain Can I copyright my domain name? Copyright law does not protect domain names.
- NoGravitas 9y ago
  Yeah, first thing I did was add it to my uBlock filters.
  - jasonkostempski 9y ago
    Is just adding the line: ||functionalclam.com^$third-party to "My Filters" the right way to do it?
    - NoGravitas 9y ago
      I think so.
- bahjoite 9y ago
  do you have any services running on the address to which you point such names or do you let the request time out?
  - userbinator 9y ago
    I use 0.0.0.0 which is the defined "invalid" address, so any requests immediately fail.
    - bahjoite 9y ago
      I tried:- echo "0.0.0.0 functionalclam.com" >> /etc/hosts but a subsequent http request for http://functionalclam.com http://functionalclam.com resulted in a page served by the web service listening on localhost. edit: append to, don't clobber /etc/hosts
      - baudehlo 9y ago
        Try 127.0.0.254 then.
        pwdisswordfish 9y ago
        Or 0.0.0.1, and spare yourself the spurious loopback traffic.
        yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
        Is 0.0.0.0/8 unused or something?
        userbinator 9y ago
        http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735#page-6 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735#page-6 It's known as "This" Network.
    - tscs37 9y ago
      I've found 192.0.2.0 rather useful. It's designated as a test IP range and shouldn't route anywhere useful in normal local networks.
- snsr 9y ago
  > it seems very odd that the DMCA could even be applicable here This is an invalid takedown request.
  - dweekly 9y ago
    Diebold was sued successfully many years ago for DMCA abuse under 512f. See OPG v Diebold. EFF prosecuted and did a great job. Use this precedent! Disclaimer: I was the plaintiff.
    - paulgb 9y ago
      On behalf of everyone who has benefited from the precedent, thanks for fighting it! The EFF helped me with a DMCA abuse that threatened to escalate a few years ago and cited that case in the response.
    - jwilk 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold....
    - dweekly 9y ago
      EFF detail - https://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold https://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold Note that HN has an issue linking to Wikipedia pages ending in a period, so add a '.' after this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold....
      - jwilk 9y ago
        Someone was kind enough to set up a redirect. :) You can URL-encode the last character to make HN happy, i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold...
- skywhopper 9y ago
  It isn't, but legal threats have chilling effects.
  - _dcwr 9y ago
    It isn't legal but USA has an interesting (as in the curse "may you live in interesting times") legal system where this is rampant and no one will ever be punished for it. Companies use it to hide criticism (VW with emission, game developers with reviews, etc.) and YouTube is full of whining on their idiotic quasi-DMCA process where companies can claim and then take down or monetize content they don't own (Kevin MacLeod's royalty free music, public domain music, static noise, game reviews that conain gameplay and are negative, etc.) and you have to dispute it and provide your real life details to Google as if they are a court to make it go away.
NoGravitas 9y ago
Can someone provide some context? How can a line in an adblock list be subject to a DMCA takedown request?
- half0wl 9y ago
  Yeah. How did this even happen?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
tribby 9y ago
IANAL, but I'm guessing the DMCA takedown request cites "circumvention of access control."[1] Would be useful if the maintainer published the request. 1. http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating-the-dmca/ http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating...
- userbinator 9y ago
  That would be a very odd interpretation of that phrase --- because when one usually thinks of "access control" and the DMCA, circumvention is about allowing access to copyrighted work. Adblocking is essentially all about disallowing access. But if that interpretation does hold up in the courts, it could lead to a very slippery slope where it becomes illegal to refuse to consume specific content. The equivalent of not being able to change the channel on the TV or go do something else when the adverts start, or even... just close one's eyes and ears.
  - cesarb 9y ago
    If I understood it correctly, that article is about anti-adblock, which denies access if you have an adblock. That is, the DMCA wouldn't apply to adblock, but would apply to anti-anti-adblock. Yes, it does seem like a bizarre legal theory, since a simpler way to bypass the anti-adblock would be to disable the adblock. That is, it would be a DMCA violation to not block ads, since by not blocking ads you're bypassing the anti-adblock and watching the content!
  - imnotatwork 9y ago
    Hope you're wrong because this is starting to look like a Black Mirror episode.
    - jk563 9y ago
      Fifteen Million Merits (S01E02) to be specific.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    I really don't see what's preventing a site from saying, "in order to use this site you must turn off all forms of content filtering" and have that be enforced by a court. I could see ad blocking spun as an unauthorized derivative work.
dingo_bat 9y ago
Does not make much sense. Is the website address itself under copyright?
- poooogles 9y ago
  >Is the website address itself under copyright? No. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain
- true_religion 9y ago
  It doesn't matter. Easylist does not have a registered dmca agent and is not eligible for dmca protection regardless of their response to dmca formated takedown requests.
StavrosK 9y ago
Wouldn't Privacy Badger block this domain anyway?
curiousgal 9y ago
Ah, the beauty of version control.
aloisdg 9y ago
Can the list be host fully somewhere else?
anc84 9y ago
Some people use the term "DMCA" for informal takedown requests. We need to see the actual form or at least get a definitive "yes, it was an actual DMCA" before speculating.
jwilk 9y ago
For those who don't know what EasyList is: The EasyList filter lists are sets of rules originally designed for Adblock that automatically remove unwanted content from the internet, including annoying adverts, bothersome banners and troublesome tracking. https://easylist.to/ https://easylist.to/
tempay 9y ago
I wonder if this can be worked around by storing a list of hashed domains to compare to instead?
- totallynotcool 9y ago
  I see no reason why that solution would not work, however, the overhead- looping all domains/elements, hashing them, then doing a key->value lookup- might not be worth the processing power. Good solution and worth looking into though!
- ucho 9y ago
  Storing hashes in source repo would make it very hard to manage and I am not sure if processing raw names into hashes as part of build would be any help against such DMCA request.
pgl 9y ago
Added: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/details.php?hostname=functionalclam.com http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/details.php?hostname=functiona...
- thinkMOAR 9y ago
  So you just list it because it was on another list, without gathering any proof yourself? What a great list you maintain. Also slightly disappointing you take PayPal donations, if any party is nasty in the ad industry... it is them.
  - pgl 9y ago
    No. I went to the site first, which explicitly states that it's being used as a tracking domain. Then I added it.
    - mobilemidget 9y ago
      Could you please elaborate where it mentions that it is used a tracking domain? Because I can read, and I don't read anything like this. It does mention it records metrics to help understanding and authorising access to their site and copyrighted content. Afaik this is called logging; not tracking.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
        In the modern world, logging should be treated as tracking, because it usually is.
        thinkMOAR 9y ago
        So you would favour blocking all sites and services that do any logging? I suggest you cancel your ISP membership if you really don't want to be logged anywhere. Basically any sane site owner/operator logs access request to his or her site. Certain security policies like PCI also force parties in payment industry to log everything. Why then don't block PayPal? All credit card processors? If you think logging is the same as tracking. At least then be consistent about it. Though this was just a shameless plug by that blocklist operator. The url was the topic, he shows that he is is 'bad ass' and just lists it because it was removed at another party via DMCA (claimed by OP). Then says the site EXPLICITLY mentions it does tracking, while it doesn't show this at all. Those blacklists have a very few unique parties that actually properly collect and maintain a list of urls. The rest just copies the others. Parties like pi-hole etc don't contribute anything, but integrate and copy years old blacklists of each other and then claim to be some internet saviour. If you really care about the connections you have outgoing, use proper egress filtering. (little snitch like apps e.g.) This way you will filter everything, and not just the list of urls that are known by those list maintainers. If i was that party i'd consider legal actions. And dont read 'i say it doesnt do tracking', i say it doesnt mention it at all on the site, something the blacklist operator does claim. I prefer people have proper proof before claiming something and blacklisting a party.
gremlinsinc 9y ago
Maybe someone should contact EFF to see if this might fit in their wheelhouse.
yAnonymous 9y ago
That DMCA request can't be valid.
executesorder66 9y ago
Someone already added a pull request to add it back. https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500 https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500
- kristofferR 9y ago
  Yup ;)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bitshiffed 9y ago
I wonder if these were included in the DMCA: unknowntray.com , broadboundary.com , anxiousapples.com , boilingbeetle.com , ... ( https://www.threatcrowd.org/domain.php?domain=functionalclam.com https://www.threatcrowd.org/domain.php?domain=functionalclam... ) There appear to be quite a few of these domains, serving the exact same landing page, with Namecheap whois protection, and hosted on Google Cloud.
- bitshiffed 9y ago
  Other weirdness in the commit log for that event: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562a5871fc7504c756e4b2bd5bc#diff-4903e7590de76df1abe1703921a2c88b https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562... . Not finding much else, except they do appear to be hosting ad-block detectionn ( https://unknowntray.com/4430b41e83ded20e5f99d3149b838ba9394d5a075c316121705ccd1543bc9320fc690f12c8d6e27a206b5ebdc92207d119db270253373b3e5d39c687bcb5 https://unknowntray.com/4430b41e83ded20e5f99d3149b838ba9394d... , ref: https://forum.adguard.com/index.php?threads/resolved-venturebeat-com.14601/ https://forum.adguard.com/index.php?threads/resolved-venture... ). Are they DMCAing about blocking ad-blocker-blockers being a tool to "circumvent copyright access controls"?
FrozenVoid 9y ago
Someone needs to inform EFF, this sets an important precedent: Having to alter your software because it references a domain makes it dependent on all data being in line with DMCA requirements interpreted by the copyright holders(that is you can't use your software without complying with terms of domain owner). It transforms control of web experience. Imagine that a domain owner requests you mine some cryptocurrency to load his website and any browser that doesn't send him proof of mining is illegal(in reality this can be done with mandatory JavaScript and cookies checked on server for hash matches) due "access control" portion of DMCA. Most software makers can't afford to ignore DMCA or fight it.
durgiston 9y ago
IANAL: Seems to me like EasyList would have a fair-use defense here, beyond the fact that I'm pretty sure you can't copyright a domain name (trademark is a different story). They created a curated, novel work using the domain, or they are making commentary on the domain like in a news story (the commentary here being that this domain serves ads).
feelin_googley 9y ago
A quick glance at robtex suggests one would probably be safe to block the IP address: 104.198.107.72 Below are some of the other whimsical domains listed as pointing to this address. Whether we send one of the names below in our Host: header or some randomly chosen name, we still get the same response, devoid of any content, except an <img> tag to track the user. 1. anxiousapples.com 2. beamkite.com 3. calmfoot.com 4. chickensstation.com 5. consciouscabbage.com 6. copycarpenter.com 7. crownclam.com 8. functionalclam.com 9. giddycoat.com 10. guardedgovernor.com 11. jewelcheese.com 12. lizardslaugh.com 13. loudloss.com 14. photographpan.com 15. profitrumour.com 16. quaintcan.com 17. scintillatingspace.com 18. scrubsky.com 19. shallowschool.com 20. shelterstraw.com 21. sinceresofa.com 22. snakesort.com 23. storesurprise.com 24. stormyachiever.com 25. stormyshock.com 26. swimslope.com
- seretogis 9y ago
  A much longer, more complete list: (formatted weirdly, but probably better than having it take up 115+ lines.) abandonedclover.com abruptroad.com actuallysheep.com ambitiousagreement.com anxiousapples.com baskettexture.com bawdybeast.com beamincrease.com beamkite.com boilingbeetle.com brassrule.com broadboundary.com calmfoot.com cherrythread.com chiefcurrent.com chinchickens.com commandwalk.com concernrain.com consciouscabbage.com copperchickens.com copycarpenter.com copyrightaccesscontrols.com crawlclocks.com critictruck.com crownclam.com curtaincows.com cutecushion.com decisiveducks.com delightdriving.com differentdesk.com dk4ywix.com docksalmon.com doubtfulrainstorm.com dragzebra.com elasticchange.com elephantqueue.com exclusivebrass.com flavordecision.com floodprincipal.com functionalclam.com futuristicfairies.com fuzzyflavor.com ga87z2o.com giddycoat.com gorgeousground.com greetzebra.com guardedgovernor.com guitarbelieve.com hilariouszinc.com illustriousoatmeal.com incrediblesugar.com ivykiosk.com jewelcheese.com karisimbi.net limpingline.com lizardslaugh.com lopsidedspoon.com loudloss.com lp3tdqle.com lumpyleaf.com matchcows.com mixedreading.com mowfruit.com ovalpigs.com peacepowder.com photographpan.com pietexture.com possibleboats.com practicetoothpaste.com presetrabbits.com profitrumour.com provideplant.com quaintcan.com quicksandear.com readgoldfish.com receptiveink.com rulerabbit.com saysidewalk.com scarcestream.com scrubsky.com scrubswim.com separatesilver.com shakesea.com shakytaste.com shallowschool.com shelterstraw.com shiveringsail.com shockingswing.com simplisticnose.com sinceresofa.com snakesort.com sneaklevel.com sneakystamp.com spectacularsnail.com spillvacation.com squeamishscarecrow.com storesurprise.com stormyachiever.com stormyshock.com stormysponge.com straightnest.com strivesidewalk.com structuresofa.com succeedscene.com superficialsink.com terribleturkey.com thirdrespect.com throattrees.com tidytrail.com tracedesire.com trickycelery.com tritetongue.com unknowntray.com unusualtitle.com voicevegetable.com
lsaferite 9y ago
Perhaps it was an automated DMCA complaint triggered by the target hostname appearing on a non-customer site?

261 points by marksamman 9y ago

A copy of the request would be nice.

Thanks, just added it to my HOSTS file... I don't know if the Streisand Effect is going to happen with this one, but it seems very odd that the DMCA could even be applicable here. Edit: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain Can I copyright my domain name? Copyright law does not protect domain names.

NoGravitas 9y ago
Yeah, first thing I did was add it to my uBlock filters.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  Is just adding the line: ||functionalclam.com^$third-party to "My Filters" the right way to do it?
  - NoGravitas 9y ago
    I think so.
bahjoite 9y ago
do you have any services running on the address to which you point such names or do you let the request time out?
- userbinator 9y ago
  I use 0.0.0.0 which is the defined "invalid" address, so any requests immediately fail.
  - bahjoite 9y ago
    I tried:- echo "0.0.0.0 functionalclam.com" >> /etc/hosts but a subsequent http request for http://functionalclam.com http://functionalclam.com resulted in a page served by the web service listening on localhost. edit: append to, don't clobber /etc/hosts
    - baudehlo 9y ago
      Try 127.0.0.254 then.
      - pwdisswordfish 9y ago
        Or 0.0.0.1, and spare yourself the spurious loopback traffic.
        yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
        Is 0.0.0.0/8 unused or something?
        userbinator 9y ago
        http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735#page-6 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735#page-6 It's known as "This" Network.
  - tscs37 9y ago
    I've found 192.0.2.0 rather useful. It's designated as a test IP range and shouldn't route anywhere useful in normal local networks.
snsr 9y ago
> it seems very odd that the DMCA could even be applicable here This is an invalid takedown request.
- dweekly 9y ago
  Diebold was sued successfully many years ago for DMCA abuse under 512f. See OPG v Diebold. EFF prosecuted and did a great job. Use this precedent! Disclaimer: I was the plaintiff.
  - paulgb 9y ago
    On behalf of everyone who has benefited from the precedent, thanks for fighting it! The EFF helped me with a DMCA abuse that threatened to escalate a few years ago and cited that case in the response.
  - jwilk 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold....
  - dweekly 9y ago
    EFF detail - https://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold https://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold Note that HN has an issue linking to Wikipedia pages ending in a period, so add a '.' after this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold....
    - jwilk 9y ago
      Someone was kind enough to set up a redirect. :) You can URL-encode the last character to make HN happy, i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold,_Inc%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold...
skywhopper 9y ago
It isn't, but legal threats have chilling effects.
- _dcwr 9y ago
  It isn't legal but USA has an interesting (as in the curse "may you live in interesting times") legal system where this is rampant and no one will ever be punished for it. Companies use it to hide criticism (VW with emission, game developers with reviews, etc.) and YouTube is full of whining on their idiotic quasi-DMCA process where companies can claim and then take down or monetize content they don't own (Kevin MacLeod's royalty free music, public domain music, static noise, game reviews that conain gameplay and are negative, etc.) and you have to dispute it and provide your real life details to Google as if they are a court to make it go away.

NoGravitas 9y ago

Can someone provide some context? How can a line in an adblock list be subject to a DMCA takedown request?

half0wl 9y ago
Yeah. How did this even happen?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

tribby 9y ago

IANAL, but I'm guessing the DMCA takedown request cites "circumvention of access control."[1] Would be useful if the maintainer published the request. 1. http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating-the-dmca/ http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating...

userbinator 9y ago
That would be a very odd interpretation of that phrase --- because when one usually thinks of "access control" and the DMCA, circumvention is about allowing access to copyrighted work. Adblocking is essentially all about disallowing access. But if that interpretation does hold up in the courts, it could lead to a very slippery slope where it becomes illegal to refuse to consume specific content. The equivalent of not being able to change the channel on the TV or go do something else when the adverts start, or even... just close one's eyes and ears.
- cesarb 9y ago
  If I understood it correctly, that article is about anti-adblock, which denies access if you have an adblock. That is, the DMCA wouldn't apply to adblock, but would apply to anti-anti-adblock. Yes, it does seem like a bizarre legal theory, since a simpler way to bypass the anti-adblock would be to disable the adblock. That is, it would be a DMCA violation to not block ads, since by not blocking ads you're bypassing the anti-adblock and watching the content!
- imnotatwork 9y ago
  Hope you're wrong because this is starting to look like a Black Mirror episode.
  - jk563 9y ago
    Fifteen Million Merits (S01E02) to be specific.
- Spivak 9y ago
  I really don't see what's preventing a site from saying, "in order to use this site you must turn off all forms of content filtering" and have that be enforced by a court. I could see ad blocking spun as an unauthorized derivative work.

dingo_bat 9y ago

Does not make much sense. Is the website address itself under copyright?

poooogles 9y ago
>Is the website address itself under copyright? No. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#domain
true_religion 9y ago
It doesn't matter. Easylist does not have a registered dmca agent and is not eligible for dmca protection regardless of their response to dmca formated takedown requests.

StavrosK 9y ago

Wouldn't Privacy Badger block this domain anyway?

curiousgal 9y ago

Ah, the beauty of version control.

aloisdg 9y ago

Can the list be host fully somewhere else?

anc84 9y ago

Some people use the term "DMCA" for informal takedown requests. We need to see the actual form or at least get a definitive "yes, it was an actual DMCA" before speculating.

jwilk 9y ago

For those who don't know what EasyList is: The EasyList filter lists are sets of rules originally designed for Adblock that automatically remove unwanted content from the internet, including annoying adverts, bothersome banners and troublesome tracking. https://easylist.to/ https://easylist.to/

tempay 9y ago

I wonder if this can be worked around by storing a list of hashed domains to compare to instead?

totallynotcool 9y ago
I see no reason why that solution would not work, however, the overhead- looping all domains/elements, hashing them, then doing a key->value lookup- might not be worth the processing power. Good solution and worth looking into though!
ucho 9y ago
Storing hashes in source repo would make it very hard to manage and I am not sure if processing raw names into hashes as part of build would be any help against such DMCA request.

pgl 9y ago

Added: http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/details.php?hostname=functionalclam.com http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/details.php?hostname=functiona...

thinkMOAR 9y ago
So you just list it because it was on another list, without gathering any proof yourself? What a great list you maintain. Also slightly disappointing you take PayPal donations, if any party is nasty in the ad industry... it is them.
- pgl 9y ago
  No. I went to the site first, which explicitly states that it's being used as a tracking domain. Then I added it.
  - mobilemidget 9y ago
    Could you please elaborate where it mentions that it is used a tracking domain? Because I can read, and I don't read anything like this. It does mention it records metrics to help understanding and authorising access to their site and copyrighted content. Afaik this is called logging; not tracking.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      In the modern world, logging should be treated as tracking, because it usually is.
      - thinkMOAR 9y ago
        So you would favour blocking all sites and services that do any logging? I suggest you cancel your ISP membership if you really don't want to be logged anywhere. Basically any sane site owner/operator logs access request to his or her site. Certain security policies like PCI also force parties in payment industry to log everything. Why then don't block PayPal? All credit card processors? If you think logging is the same as tracking. At least then be consistent about it. Though this was just a shameless plug by that blocklist operator. The url was the topic, he shows that he is is 'bad ass' and just lists it because it was removed at another party via DMCA (claimed by OP). Then says the site EXPLICITLY mentions it does tracking, while it doesn't show this at all. Those blacklists have a very few unique parties that actually properly collect and maintain a list of urls. The rest just copies the others. Parties like pi-hole etc don't contribute anything, but integrate and copy years old blacklists of each other and then claim to be some internet saviour. If you really care about the connections you have outgoing, use proper egress filtering. (little snitch like apps e.g.) This way you will filter everything, and not just the list of urls that are known by those list maintainers. If i was that party i'd consider legal actions. And dont read 'i say it doesnt do tracking', i say it doesnt mention it at all on the site, something the blacklist operator does claim. I prefer people have proper proof before claiming something and blacklisting a party.

gremlinsinc 9y ago

Maybe someone should contact EFF to see if this might fit in their wheelhouse.

yAnonymous 9y ago

That DMCA request can't be valid.

executesorder66 9y ago

Someone already added a pull request to add it back. https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500 https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500

kristofferR 9y ago
Yup ;)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bitshiffed 9y ago

I wonder if these were included in the DMCA: unknowntray.com , broadboundary.com , anxiousapples.com , boilingbeetle.com , ... ( https://www.threatcrowd.org/domain.php?domain=functionalclam.com https://www.threatcrowd.org/domain.php?domain=functionalclam... ) There appear to be quite a few of these domains, serving the exact same landing page, with Namecheap whois protection, and hosted on Google Cloud.

bitshiffed 9y ago
Other weirdness in the commit log for that event: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562a5871fc7504c756e4b2bd5bc#diff-4903e7590de76df1abe1703921a2c88b https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562... . Not finding much else, except they do appear to be hosting ad-block detectionn ( https://unknowntray.com/4430b41e83ded20e5f99d3149b838ba9394d5a075c316121705ccd1543bc9320fc690f12c8d6e27a206b5ebdc92207d119db270253373b3e5d39c687bcb5 https://unknowntray.com/4430b41e83ded20e5f99d3149b838ba9394d... , ref: https://forum.adguard.com/index.php?threads/resolved-venturebeat-com.14601/ https://forum.adguard.com/index.php?threads/resolved-venture... ). Are they DMCAing about blocking ad-blocker-blockers being a tool to "circumvent copyright access controls"?

FrozenVoid 9y ago

Someone needs to inform EFF, this sets an important precedent: Having to alter your software because it references a domain makes it dependent on all data being in line with DMCA requirements interpreted by the copyright holders(that is you can't use your software without complying with terms of domain owner). It transforms control of web experience. Imagine that a domain owner requests you mine some cryptocurrency to load his website and any browser that doesn't send him proof of mining is illegal(in reality this can be done with mandatory JavaScript and cookies checked on server for hash matches) due "access control" portion of DMCA. Most software makers can't afford to ignore DMCA or fight it.

durgiston 9y ago

IANAL: Seems to me like EasyList would have a fair-use defense here, beyond the fact that I'm pretty sure you can't copyright a domain name (trademark is a different story). They created a curated, novel work using the domain, or they are making commentary on the domain like in a news story (the commentary here being that this domain serves ads).

feelin_googley 9y ago

A quick glance at robtex suggests one would probably be safe to block the IP address: 104.198.107.72 Below are some of the other whimsical domains listed as pointing to this address. Whether we send one of the names below in our Host: header or some randomly chosen name, we still get the same response, devoid of any content, except an <img> tag to track the user. 1. anxiousapples.com 2. beamkite.com 3. calmfoot.com 4. chickensstation.com 5. consciouscabbage.com 6. copycarpenter.com 7. crownclam.com 8. functionalclam.com 9. giddycoat.com 10. guardedgovernor.com 11. jewelcheese.com 12. lizardslaugh.com 13. loudloss.com 14. photographpan.com 15. profitrumour.com 16. quaintcan.com 17. scintillatingspace.com 18. scrubsky.com 19. shallowschool.com 20. shelterstraw.com 21. sinceresofa.com 22. snakesort.com 23. storesurprise.com 24. stormyachiever.com 25. stormyshock.com 26. swimslope.com

seretogis 9y ago
A much longer, more complete list: (formatted weirdly, but probably better than having it take up 115+ lines.) abandonedclover.com abruptroad.com actuallysheep.com ambitiousagreement.com anxiousapples.com baskettexture.com bawdybeast.com beamincrease.com beamkite.com boilingbeetle.com brassrule.com broadboundary.com calmfoot.com cherrythread.com chiefcurrent.com chinchickens.com commandwalk.com concernrain.com consciouscabbage.com copperchickens.com copycarpenter.com copyrightaccesscontrols.com crawlclocks.com critictruck.com crownclam.com curtaincows.com cutecushion.com decisiveducks.com delightdriving.com differentdesk.com dk4ywix.com docksalmon.com doubtfulrainstorm.com dragzebra.com elasticchange.com elephantqueue.com exclusivebrass.com flavordecision.com floodprincipal.com functionalclam.com futuristicfairies.com fuzzyflavor.com ga87z2o.com giddycoat.com gorgeousground.com greetzebra.com guardedgovernor.com guitarbelieve.com hilariouszinc.com illustriousoatmeal.com incrediblesugar.com ivykiosk.com jewelcheese.com karisimbi.net limpingline.com lizardslaugh.com lopsidedspoon.com loudloss.com lp3tdqle.com lumpyleaf.com matchcows.com mixedreading.com mowfruit.com ovalpigs.com peacepowder.com photographpan.com pietexture.com possibleboats.com practicetoothpaste.com presetrabbits.com profitrumour.com provideplant.com quaintcan.com quicksandear.com readgoldfish.com receptiveink.com rulerabbit.com saysidewalk.com scarcestream.com scrubsky.com scrubswim.com separatesilver.com shakesea.com shakytaste.com shallowschool.com shelterstraw.com shiveringsail.com shockingswing.com simplisticnose.com sinceresofa.com snakesort.com sneaklevel.com sneakystamp.com spectacularsnail.com spillvacation.com squeamishscarecrow.com storesurprise.com stormyachiever.com stormyshock.com stormysponge.com straightnest.com strivesidewalk.com structuresofa.com succeedscene.com superficialsink.com terribleturkey.com thirdrespect.com throattrees.com tidytrail.com tracedesire.com trickycelery.com tritetongue.com unknowntray.com unusualtitle.com voicevegetable.com

lsaferite 9y ago

Perhaps it was an automated DMCA complaint triggered by the target hostname appearing on a non-customer site?