24 ms·

Ad blocking is under attack

• BoiledCabbage 9y ago
  So right now this is one of the top stories on HN. How ad-blockers are being threatened and from comments below, "how annoying website subscription requests are." Later this week, I expect we'll see another post about the derth of quality journalism and the "unfortunate" continued growth of buzzfeed-style and listicles taking over the net, slowly killing off quality content.
  • tobz 9y ago
    Sidenote: not that I think you are personally attacking them, but BuzzFeed does have some quality investigative journalism. Listicles and clickbait help pay the bills, and I didn't believe it when I was informed the first time, but... it exists. Probably wouldn't be able to continue without the clickbait ad revenue, though, heh. :P
• rnhmjoj 9y ago
  Can't we host EasyList somewhere safer?
  • koolba 9y ago
    International safe zone or something distributed like IPFS?
    • brador 9y ago
      Blockchain would be great for this.
      • jethro_tell 9y ago
        what would block chain give that git wouldn't? Wouldn't anyone beable to remove a domain or add a domain.
        • stale2002 9y ago
          No, you just have a hash of the "official" version of the list. And when the list needs to be updated, the person with the private key publishes a new list again. The advantage of using the bitcoin blockchain, for example, is that it can't be censored. DMCA trolls now have to go after every single bitcoin company in the world, to stop them from "hosting" the copyrighted work.
          • jethro_tell 9y ago
            Why would they not go after the guy with the private key? Any way he can escape that so could git.
        • brador 9y ago
          Permanence. The lists would be blockchain addresses that you compile locally into the blocking list.
          • jethro_tell 9y ago
            Perminance is not a great thing for a blacklist. Spamand ads is complicated stuff. There are false positives, and abuse.
    • Kubuxu 9y ago
      IPFS dev here. We are quite close to having git being hosted directly on IPFS/IPLD. Things like pushing and cloning work. Example workflow: git push ipld:: <prints out CID of that commit which has 1:1 mapping to hash of the commit> git pull ipld::$CID <or> git clone ipld::$CID Important fact is: the git objects are stored in native git format. Hashes are the same, but are pretended with CID header (content identifier) which tells IPFS how to understand links and content of this object. We plan to work on remotes in close future. There is one more issue where our measure of DoS protection causes that repos with files bigger than 1MiB+ (or 2MiB, I can't recall) can't be fetched. It will be a bit harder to fix but I know we can do it.
• nilved 9y ago
  The DMCA only applies to the US. Fork the repo and move on. It's time to forget about American hosting.
  • exabrial 9y ago
    Sad but true :( If we could only remove the logjam in congress right now to get some real work done... currently the two parties are deadlocked in a power struggle and have completely forgotten why they're there.
    • zanny 9y ago
      > currently the two parties are deadlocked in a power struggle You mean since about 1790? There have always been two parties in congress (minus the era of good feelings) and they have always had opposing ideology, and have almost always blocked one another's proposals. It is very naive to think the current Republican congress is anything different or new. Their inaction is intentional - they need to pass their anti-citizen legislation they were appointed for when people are not watching them. It is also somewhat inaccurate to blame it on "deadlocked parties". The factions within them to varying degrees stifle them. The parties aren't monoliths of ideology that uniformly vote the way the chair swings. If congress isn't passing good legislation, its because the constituent members of that congress aren't a majority good actors. Regardless of color. Regardless of excuses given. Politicians always act in the interest of someone. Sometimes its themselves. It used to sometimes be for their constituents (because they had to appease them for votes). Today it is mostly for corporate campaign donors. And those donors want the status quo. They don't want the changes average Americans want. The whole point of their buying and owning of politicians is to impede change. Of course a congress filled with men told to maintain gridlock and prevent reform by their masters will do so, and they do it in a way optimized for themselves - by always blaming someone else and taking no responsibility for the gridlock you cause, your base can just keep reelecting you despite hating congress in general. As long as the voters remain ignorant to this con, the business interests get what they paid for - usually corporate welfare.
      • mikeash 9y ago
• richardknop 9y ago
  There has been a growing trend of websites that will ask me to either: a) whitelist their site in my adblocker b) or subscribe to their monthly subscription and keep reading their site with adblocker
  • aphextron 9y ago
    Which results every single time in choosing option C: the browser back button.
    • krisdol 9y ago
      Usually two or three times because fuck sites who hijack browser history because I scroll a little too far
      • Filligree 9y ago
        It's fine if they're just letting you bookmark the particular spot in the page, but this is what replaceState is for. pushState is definitely wrong.
      • njharman 9y ago
        That's what open in new tab is for. Close tab is way better than back. Easier, more consistent and faster.
        • digital_trench 9y ago
          Use the mouse wheel/middle button. Will open a new tab when you click on a link and will close a tab when you click on the tab. This changed my life.
          • TheRealPomax 9y ago
            too fickle: half the time I endup also scrolling. ctrl-click is far more predictable. Same result, less "trying to press a thing designed to roll".
• ehxcaet 9y ago
  What's to stop people from forking off that list and transitioning to another one? Like what if ad blockers just switched to use EasyList2 instead of EasyList?
  • j605 9y ago
    Since all this is tracked in version control we can just add it to our filter manually and the problem is solved.
  • romanovcode 9y ago
    As long as code is hosted in U.S. (GitHub) the cat and mouse game will continue. If you host your repo in some other country that does not care about U.S. DMCA then it should be fine.
    • pfg 9y ago
      Other countries have copyright laws too. Most of these laws have some kind of notice-followed-by-takedown protocol, and my understanding is that in many jurisdictions, a DMCA takedown notice qualifies as such a notice. Probably the only major difference would be the amount of effort the infringed party would have to go through to enforce the takedown notice if the infringing party is non-compliant. Disclaimer: IANAL.
      • JoshTriplett 9y ago
        Most other countries don't have the concept of "anti-circumvention" laws, though.
      • buzer 9y ago
        > and my understanding is that in many jurisdictions, a DMCA takedown notice qualifies as such a notice. It sounds a bit weird that a notice that has legal ramifications and is written in non-official language of the country would be legally binding. Or would American judges accept DMCA notice that was written in Spanish (I was considering using something like Comorian, but that's probably a bit too different case)?
• mtgx 9y ago
  This is what you get when companies have all the incentive to file DMCA takedown requests and there's no punishment for filing a bogus one. And modern technology is making this problem increasingly worse, with all the automated takedown tools.
• aphextron 9y ago
  >"This domain accepts GET and POST requests over standard HTTP ports (TCP 80 and TCP 443) via strictly web based traffic originating from browsers" lol
  • Spivak 9y ago
    Don't joke. You really don't want to see these kinds of ravenous lawyers try to define website access not from an 'approved' browser as unauthorized access under the CFAA.
    • ransom1538 9y ago
      You could add to your TOS which browsers are approved. Using an unapproved browser would violate the current CFAA - under the current interpretation. Federal felony 1-5 years.
      • koolba 9y ago
        And then submit a subpoena for all users that have installed a user agent switcher plugin. Because clearly they're all criminals with nefarious intent.
        • ransom1538 9y ago
          Exactly. Next; 1) Find a young eager numbers driven federal prosecutor near 'US District Court Of Wyoming' 2) Offer plea deals. Explain to the users of said 'hacker plugins' they can choose to take the 'risk' of a (confused local residence) jury or take the generous plea of 2 years of federal prison.
      • relevant_thing 9y ago
        False. See 828 F.3d 1068 at 1077 (9th Cir. 2016): >From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA. They say this because (Id. at 1076): >"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but website owners retain the right to change the terms at any time and without notice." [676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012)] at 862. As a result, imposing criminal liability for violations of the terms of use of a website could criminalize many daily activities. Accordingly, "the phrase 'exceeds authorized access' in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions. If Congress wants to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more clearly." Id. at 863.
• wnevets 9y ago
  a DCMA request for listing a inherently public domain name? Am I the only one confused?
  • rhizome 9y ago
    No. It's appears to be a weird situation, described poorly by all sides, each of whom appear to be highly concerned with promoting themselves within their explanations.
• dhimes 9y ago
  Is it illegal to claim something under DMCA when it does not in fact represent a DMCA claim?
  • rnhmjoj 9y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332199 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5332199
  • CWuestefeld 9y ago
    Yes, but: A. Nobody - NOBODY - is ever punished for violating. B. The folks in question here think they have a colorable argument for why it really is DMCA. As linked from the OP, this is here [1]. (FWIW, I think it's silly) [1] http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating-the-dmca/ http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating...
    • falcolas 9y ago
      Nobody is punished because the DMCA claim/counterclaim process gives them a chance to back out of the claim before it goes to court. And the word is that if it does go to court, proving that they willfully and intentionally misrepresented their ownership of the material under question is a very high bar; it would probably require some internal memo with content approximating "We know we don't own X but let's issue a DMCA against Y for hosting X anyways."
  • zanny 9y ago
    In the US the "justice" system is predominantly accuse first ask questions later, and because legal council is insanely expensive (by design) in most cases all you have to do is accuse someone of something and it will either bankrupt them trying to defend it or they will pay you off to let them go. It is incredibly broken and corrupt, but like many things in the US nothing will be done about it because the elites have the money to defend themselves and enjoy the benefit of being able to ruin anyone they want who don't have access to similar financial resources that they wield. If you can afford the several hundred thousands to millions of dollars a protracted legal battle will take you can often get the costs dumped on the losing party. You just have to spend years getting there with your own money and time.
• gremlinsinc 9y ago
  Wonder if we could create a git in the blockchain... where DMCA just can't exist/happen since there's no central authority to ask to take stuff down...
  • slaymaker1907 9y ago
    I think IPFS would be a better bet than block chain for this.
    • willglynn 9y ago
      You might be interested to note the IPFS DMCA policy: https://discuss.ipfs.io/tos#8 https://discuss.ipfs.io/tos#8
      • rnhmjoj 9y ago
        This is irrelevant because ipfs.io may act as a proxy but content is stored somewhere on the network and accessible via IPFS.
        • lqdc13 9y ago
          Still need some proxy for it to be accessible from the internet right?
          • rnhmjoj 9y ago
            No, you don't need one: you are supposed to run your own IPFS node. There are even browsers that supports IPFS out-of-the-box.
          • detaro 9y ago
            If by "internet" you mean your browser/over HTTP, then yes. But the IPFS client provides exactly that, on your local machine, without any restrictions. If you offer it to the public, you can choose your own policy on copyrighted etc. content.
• Dolores12 9y ago
  Is it safe to type this blocked URL in browser? Will i get sued?
  • arkitaip 9y ago
    Only if you delete all and any memories you have of the domain. I suggest a bottle of strong alcohol. If the contents of the bottle doesn't facilitate in aforementioned memory deletion, usage of the bottle to apply liberal amounts of blunt force is suggested.
• eli 9y ago
  This seems a bit hyperbolic. If you believe there's a battle between ad servers and ad blockers, it's obvious the ad blockers are winning by a lot. IANAL but this seems like a questionable use of DMCA Takedown notice which, in any event, isn't actually binding. EasyList could probably file a counternotification and risk a lawsuit.
• mnarayan01 9y ago
  Via https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0fab679a1a8c5a791321622b3#commitcomment-23599344 https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0... by one of the Easylist maintainers: > If it is a Circumvention/Adblock-Warning adhost, it should be removed from Easylist even without the need for a DMCA request. Anyone know why he's saying this? Edit: I guess he's referring to the following via https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adblock-guide-for-site-admins.html https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adblock-guide-for-site-a...: > Anti-Adblock should only be challenged if the system limits website functionality or causes significant disruption to browsing
  • eightysixfour 9y ago
    I believe EasyList only accepts ad servers onto their list as a general rule, not adblock warnings/blockers.
  • JoshTriplett 9y ago
    Some adblocker lists maintain blocks for anti-adblock messages separate from blocks for ads, which allows people to choose which they block.
  • discreditable 9y ago
    > Anyone know why he's saying this? Because their business model depends on it working.
  • augustus0 9y ago
    I didn't realize that anti-adblock lists were generally maintained separately, and this comment tipped me off to it. If you're using something like uBlock, it might be worth going into Settings -> 3rd-party filters. There's a few lists in there which are not enabled by default that are curated to work around anti-adblocking technologies. For example, "Adblock Warning Removal List".
    • lightbyte 9y ago
      If you're going into uBlock's settings, don't forget to add the domain this whole this is referring to (functionalclam.com) to your custom block filters.
• tyingq 9y ago
  Just encode the list of urls with htmlentities, base64, rot13, whatever. Then the DMCA can't be used to attack it. Edit: Disagree? Please comment. It's attackable via the DMCA because the word/brand is in the file in it's copyrighted form. If you encode it such that it isn't in that form, it's protected from that approach.
  • sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Encrypted IP is still IP.
    • chii 9y ago
      a url isn't and can't be IP - otherwise, how would anyone go to any website without violating copyright?
      • tyingq 9y ago
        That's what I'm getting at. The DMCA complaint should have been rejected. It wasn't because the people filtering the incoming requests are using a simple high pass filter of "is this text on this page". So, if you encode the data, you remove the ability to use the DMCA inappropriately.
        • sillysaurus3 9y ago
          There are two aspects to your question which are tangled together. 1. Can IP be encoded as a way of dodging the DMCA? a: no. 2. Will encoding the source material allow you to dodge DMCA trolls? I think the answer is again no. The tradeoff in complexity isn't worth the marginal gains. Imagine not being able to browse the code on github, for example, since it's encoded. A better response is to fight. If the DMCA has been abused, it's up to us to meet each claim with energy and on the same battlefield. It's tiring work, but this is the compromise America has reached circa 2017.
          • goodplay 9y ago
• spilk 9y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks its laughable that adding their domain to a blocklist "circumvents" their protection technology? If I was a content provider I don't think I'd want to rely on something so flimsy.
  • jethro_tell 9y ago
    It's turtles all the way down man, at some point, everyone has to use DNS.
• superflyguy 9y ago
  Store a hash of the URLs instead of the URLs themselves.
  • natch 9y ago
    Good idea, had the same idea, but we need (the community/users need) to be able to determine what the URLs are, for transparency. So I suggest ROT-13 instead.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • Lagged2Death 9y ago
    I don't see how this would work when the URL lists are full of regexps etc. If you could make it work, you'd would wind up with some sort of source file of domains, parsed at build time to generate list of hashes that actually ship with your plugin. That source file would belong in a repo, and would still be DMCA-able in this way. Also, this would make ad-blockers even more CPU intensive than they are. We shouldn't have to pursue a technical solution. It's my computer, it's my internet connection. If I'm not allowed to control my own property, then the concept of property becomes meaningless.
    • JD557 9y ago
      >I don't see how this would work when the URL lists are full of regexps etc. I guess you could distribute a compiled finite automaton instead of a list of hashed values. It would make searching GitHub for "infringing lists" much harder (even harder than hashes). Nevertheless, I agree with "We shouldn't have to pursue a technical solution". There's no point in trying to act like a Mr. smarty-pants in legal situations, as most technical solutions might not work out as expected in court.
    • goodplay 9y ago
      Agreed with seeking a legal solution instead of just relying on a techincal one, but if the problem is the string of characters, just hash those instead without hashing the whole host: [HASH:1AB543.124A3CC4.1AB543]/ads
• anilgulecha 9y ago
  It was admiral that did this: https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-access-control-admiral-10-things-to-know/ https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-... They even clearly state they used the only tool available to them, DCMA. From all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in easylist. A domain can be trademarked. This should be added back in. And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then well, easylist and all other developers should be giving a clear hard though to their continued use of the github platform. Edit: it looks like EFF has gotten in touch with easylist. Good. https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-from-easylist-ad-blocklist-170811/ https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...
  • whipoodle 9y ago
    They say it's not an ad server but it sounds like one.
    • anilgulecha 9y ago
      It's a "detect-adblocker" service.
      • dnm 9y ago
        So is their argument that by including their hostname in easylist, you are circumventing copyright controls because they validate copyrighted material usage? The takedown notice didn't seem to be related to the domain name per se, but rather the effects of including it in easylist. IOW in order to view our client's copyrighted material, we are providing access controls and by denying the code access to our server, you are circumventing those access controls.
      • Overtonwindow 9y ago
        So we should be adding functionalClam.com on our own? Perhaps all of these.
        • 9y ago
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• such_a_casual 9y ago
  Dan Rua. Fag of the day. Dan the fag's response to being called out: ====================== Admiral asked Easylist to remove functionalclam.com from their filters and here’s why: functionalclam.com is not an adserver. That domain is part of the DMCA copyright access control platform Admiral provides publishers so they can engage visitors in a transparent way on the value exchange for their copyrighted content, instead of resorting to surprise ad reinsertion the way some of our competitors advocate but visitors and advertisers dislike. Circumventing a publisher’s paywall or copyright access control technology is not OK and we don’t believe it’s core to the mission of AdBlock Plus and EasyList. ====================== Dan the fag's linked in page: ====================== CEO Admiral: Adblock Publisher Solutions 2015 – Present (2 years)United States Advanced Adblock Analytics with Automated Revenue Recovery The power of the internet to inform, entertain and liberate mankind is at a crossroads. The future of ad-supported content is in peril, and with it, free access for citizens to critical news, education, discourse and resources the world over. The shorthand name for this looming catastrophe is "adblocking", but the root problems and solutions for users and publishers are more complex. Adblockers claim adoption by over 200M users worldwide and publisher losses as a result of adblocking are estimated to reach $40 billion in 2016. Despite per-site adblocking rates ranging from 10% to as high as 40% for some tech-focused sites, the trend is still young and growing with a 40%+ growth rate over the past 12 months. Admiral is the publisher analytics suite built specifically to help web and mobile publishers understand the impact of adblocking for their site, and automatically recover lost revenues by solving the issues driving adblock adoption specific to their userbase."> ====================== Sounds like Dan the fag is a liar. (1) https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-access-control-admiral-10-things-to-know/ https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-... (2) https://www.linkedin.com/in/danrua https://www.linkedin.com/in/danrua (3) Using the word fag here to mean a piece of shit. No homophobia intended. Much love and respect for the gays.
  • CWuestefeld 9y ago
    homophobic or not, name-calling does nothing to advance the conversation.
    • 9y ago
• firefoxd 9y ago
  I use privacy badger, and unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't use a list to block content, it just blocks any 3rd party request that send cookie information. Why are we relying on a list?
  • ballenf 9y ago
    That approach might not be enough: https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95 https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95 Edit: the linked issue is regard "instart" which seems to exploit a Chromium flaw that allows it to disguise third-party cookies as first-party, preventing filtering based on that categorization alone. It seems it's getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended.
    • warrenm 9y ago
      >getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended That's because people want to Do Cool Stuff™ in their browsers - ie, they don't want to merely "browse"
    • dylz 9y ago
      Instart is a MITM service like Cloudflare. It more or less partners with adproviders to serve thirdparty requests through a proxy on the first party domain. Not so much a flaw.
    • dylz 9y ago
      Instart is a MITM service like Cloudflare. It more or less partners with adproviders to serve thirdparty requests through a proxy on the first party domain. Not so much a flaw.
  • skrebbel 9y ago
    Because that means you might be blocking legitimate stuff too. My company, https://TalkJS.com https://TalkJS.com, makes a pluggable messaging component. Customers embed it in an iframe, created by a 3rd party (from their perspective) hosted js file. Currently, it doesn't rely on cookies for security but we easily might change that. Same for other pluggable content, say Disqus and many more. I would be very sad if an ad blocker would block us because we dare use appropriate tools for security.
• troyvit 9y ago
  grep functionalclam.com /etc/hosts 0.0.0.0 functionalclam.com
• zb3 9y ago
  If in the future I am forced to view ads, I won't click on them and I won't buy any products advertised via forced ads.
  • digital_trench 9y ago
    But the ad will leave residue on your brain. So you are still being advertised to.
    • zb3 9y ago
      Well the point was that we should reward ads that aren't forced on us, or at least the ones that try to be as nice as possible. Intrusive advertising should not work...
    • ionised 9y ago
      Then perhaps like me, that ad will mean he actively avoids that product and brand out of ad-fatigue and simple spite rather than the intended effect, which is to attract people to them.
  • kuschku 9y ago
    If I see an ad, I click it. In fact, I right-click it and click the button for my shitty addon "thousand-click". Then my raspberry pi loads that ad in a headless firefox and clicks it thousands of times. You won't believe how soon you stop getting ads, and instead just empty iframes, or warnings from Google that you're abusing their ads. Well, their problem. Luckily, there's now an addon that does this fully automatically: AdNauseam. Fully automated ad abuse, and ensures that if enough people use it, online advertising will die within of weeks.
• pmoriarty 9y ago
  The DMCA itself should be taken down. Where is the organizing against it?
• natch 9y ago
  ROT-13 the entries in the list. Update ad blockers to read that format. Solved.
• SoMisanthrope 9y ago
  Personally, this could be a real problem, if Ad services decide to pry open the doors on our ability to deny them our screen real estate. I block Ads, primarily due to the fact that I don't want my web surfing history and behaviors captured by some uncontrollable mob a ad-servers. Further, most advertisements are akin to the dreaded <flash> tag of old! animated, ugly, and obtrusive. We are coming to a point in the Internets genesis, where technology should evolve to allow the "information consumer" to directly reward the "information producer"... without the need of an intermediary like Google Adwords, etc. etc.
  • warrenm 9y ago
    >allow the "information consumer" to directly reward the "information producer" That's what paywalls are.
• delegate 9y ago
  As I understand they're using copyright laws not to prevent me from copying content, but to preventing me from not consuming content. In other words, the copyright law is used to force content consumption.
  • Markoff 9y ago
    you better not watch Black mirror 15 million merits
• pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  The only way I see DMCA applying here is contributory infringement in enabling modification of the page. With that in mind I think the question to be answered is does a user/viewer have the right to modify a page in their own web browser or must they view the page as intended by the creators? You can get in to technicalities then like are Links creators committing contributory infringement, but I'm not sure that's helpful. Should a user be able to purposefully block parts of a page?
  • visarga 9y ago
    I don't know, but should a user be in control of his own computer and screen?
  • javindo 9y ago
    > Should a user be able to purposefully block parts of a page? I have yet to see a compelling/coherent argument for why they shouldn't. As a partially sighted user myself, I find it infuriating when web developers try to override browser behaviour/modifications (e.g. blocking pinch to zoom). If we go down a path where users can't modify pages, we are taking a huge step backwards.
• cft 9y ago
  It's amazing that they are so uneducated about DMCA. This is called defective DMCA notice, and it should be ignored. The sender of the notice can now file a suit, since the publisher of the list is no longer under safe harbor. But they won't, since they know it is defective. And if they did, it would be thrown out with a summary judgment.
  • otterley 9y ago
    What, specifically, was defective about the notice?
    • jlarocco 9y ago
      DMCA is for copyright violation. What copyright was being violated here and how?
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • stephengillie 9y ago
        Apparently the copyright of web pages behind a pay wall. Blocking the domain causes their pay wall to not work - they probably load pay wall scripts from there - and allows unauthorized users to view their client's page without compensating them. It's similar to having a movie theater with a locked door. We want to see the movie, but we don't want to pay, and distributing lock picking tools is illegal. And their door is "designed to only stay locked when a light is shining on it". Here again, we are using technology to disrupt old laws.
    • cft 9y ago
      The notice does not list the copyrighted works that are being infringed (I.e. made publicly available). This is the necessary element of a valid DMCA notice.
      • JumpCrisscross 9y ago
• tomc1985 9y ago
  Sounds like it's time to relocate to a self-hosted git repo
• guelo 9y ago
  This seems like Github's fuck up.
• nkkollaw 9y ago
  I didn't get what the hell happened. So, Admiral—an anti-adblocker company—contacted EasyList and told them to remove a domain from their list. This domain was a server they needed for their anti-adblocker platform to work. EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed, so Admiral contacted GitHub and the domain was removed from the EasyList list after GitHub told EasyList they should comply. The "attack" is that any company can tell lists to remove their website via using a DMCA violation, so lists become useless. I have two questions: 1. how would a domain name on a list violate copyright 2. why aren't lists hosted anywhere else but the US so that they can't be controlled by DMCA requests.
  • danarmak 9y ago
    IIUC, the DMCA says that if there's some technological mechanism X that's used to enforce copyright, and a tool Y that is (or can be) used to circumvent X, then making or distributing Y is itself illegal (as opposed to the act of using Y to circumvent X, which is already illegal even without the DMCA). The DMCA then provides a notice-based method for 'taking down' online copies of Y. In this case, X is the Admiral technology. Copyright owners use it to control access to content. However, an adblocker with Admiral's domain on its blocklist is a tool Y that circumvents that.
    • nkkollaw 9y ago
      Thanks, I understand better now. If Admiral enables paywalls, then I kind of agree with Admiral. If companies want to put paywalls, circumventing them is kind of like jumping the gate to see a concert for free. I always hit the back button, but publishers should be free to put up paywalls (no idea why they don't do it server-side, but that's another story). So, I guess the article or at least the title are a little sensationalistic?
      • callalex 9y ago
        If your paywall can be circumvented by not making a single http request then the problem lies in bad software engineering, not the law. What happens if I'm on a slow connection and that request fails? Do they get to send the FBI after me since I'm suddenly a criminal?
• fnkcjjvjjv 9y ago
  I guess my approach of blocking domains in the dns server turned out to be a win after al
• tomschlick 9y ago
  They should just base64 encode domains. if the name isn't in cleartext can they issue a DMCA for trademark infringement?
• _jal 9y ago
  127.0.0.1 www.functionalclam.com functionalclam.com
  • dsschnau 9y ago
    There's quite a few domains that host the same site, so it might be most effective to block it at the ip level: 104.198.107.72
    • onewhonknocks 9y ago
      Thank you!
• K0nserv 9y ago
  Surely if you are truly conserned about the copyright of your work you wouldn't freely send the content to the user's device before issuing some sort of challenge e.g login at which point circumventing that becomes a crime. Websites shouldn't be allowed to dictate how the user agent decides to execute the content received. This seems like a case of wanting to have the cake and eat it too.
• EFruit 9y ago
  uBlock and uMatrix have a "page blocked" function when the entire page matches a filter, could something similar be implemented for these situations? Say, if a page requests content from these blocked domains, the ad blocker display an SSL warning-esque page that says something along the lines of "This page contains ad content protected by the DMCA. These ads may contain malicious material, and can not be safely viewed. Please alert the site owner to resolve this issue." If you want to make it really effective, you may even be able to pull contact email addresses from WHOIS data and make the contact line a mailto: URL.
  • JackC 9y ago
    This is pretty much what I want. If loading sketchy third-party tracking images is a condition of reading your content, fine, but tell me in advance so I can pass.
• jwilk 9y ago
  Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228
• logfromblammo 9y ago
  In for a penny; in for a pound. If I can't put your domain name in my adblock blacklist because it violates your copyrights or trademarks, then my DNS provider shouldn't be able to put your domain in their resolver, either.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• mnm1 9y ago
  Encrypt the list and then send a DMCA notice to any company who decrypts it without permission (non ad blocker) and tries to use this scheme again. That would seemingly be a valid DMCA claim, but IANAL.
• yahna 9y ago
  Time to move the ad blocker hosting to a country that doesn't have backwards ass laws and then hit back as hard as possible.
• op00to 9y ago
  > That domain is part of the DMCA copyright access control platform Admiral provides publishers so they can engage visitors in a transparent way on the value exchange for their copyrighted content, instead of resorting to surprise ad reinsertion the way some of our competitors advocate but visitors and advertisers dislike. Does anyone actually understand what this garbage paragraph is actually saying? It stinks of corporate-esque bullshit to me.
  • freeone3000 9y ago
    They show a pop-up attempting to convince people to disable adblockers rather than running ads that get around adblockers.
• bkul 9y ago
  Seems to me this can be handled the way the open-source community always handles such drama: fork the repo a bunch of times. I'll probably start keeping local copies of filter lists as well.
• SkyLX 9y ago
  Yes because DMCAs work so well at stopping content distribution. It's not like the lists can't be hosted on other sites, dare I say a bay where many pirates roam.
• cwkoss 9y ago
  Everyone should contact their investors. "Your portfolio company @getadmiral is committing fraud by filing false DMCA requests. Can you fix this?" Birchmere Ventures Florida Gulfshore Capital Florida Institute for the Commercialization of Public Research Mosley Ventures New World Angels https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/admiral-2#/entity https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/admiral-2#/entity If they are made aware a portfolio company is committing fraud, hopefully they have enough ethics to help sort out the situation. Not a lawyer, but if the investors are aware of the fraud and do nothing, they may have some liability themselves.
  • dustinmr 9y ago
    It would also be great if a list of their customers could be found/generated/etc. That is, if they have any yet. Seems like one to add to the hosts file forever.
  • dangrossman 9y ago
    I'm not convinced people that do this wouldn't be making an arse out of themselves. No lawyers have appeared in here to say that anything fraudulent has happened. The DMCA does prohibit dissemination of any software whose purpose is to circumvent technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. If the domain we're talking about is key to such technical measures, then distributing software that blocks it may in fact be illegal under the DMCA, and sending a DMCA notice to take it down ordinary and allowed. "New World Angels" have no power to overturn the law of the land, especially one which is implementation of a broad international treaty.
    • pishpash 9y ago
      EasyList is not software. It's just a fracking list. Is it a DCMA violation to state factually, as I am doing now, that functionalclam.com is a so-called "access control" domain?
• mlcdf 9y ago
  What's with the "they would only take action if GitHub agreed." ? I'm confused, what's the link between GitHub and EasyLink (except code hosting)?
• cwkoss 9y ago
  Start a gofundme for raising money for a counterclaim? I'd throw some in.
• wodencafe 9y ago
  This is crazy, how can a link be a violation of the DMCA?
• colept 9y ago
  I have a very unpopular opinion that pulls me in two directions. Advertisements have exceeded the point of being a nuisance for many years. But adblocking is a fight that solves symptoms and will affect more than just advertising in a negative way. The best parallel I can draw is to the Napster era when pirating music cut off the head of the chicken in the industry. Hollywood and like were refusing to adjust to digital downloads and streaming. Part of this was due to the fact that it would drive down profits. But people started pirating the content and getting it for free so they lost money anyways. It's not impossible, but it has become more difficult for artists to break into the industry (along with competition) because of the margin of profitability. In that same vein - publishers and advertisers have resisted the market and have bled their visitors for every penny. Finally the users stood up and said enough is enough - and now we have adblocking. The problem I have with adblocking is that it doesn't resolve the problem, just the symptoms. Adblocking pushes out smalltime publishers whose only revenue are these obtrusive ads. The "big guys" can stay alive as the reduction will be drops in the water for them. The way I see adblocking is that it will only drive the publishing industry further towards monopolies who will push the little guys out. And once you are getting all your content from 1-3 sources and the little guys are gone - there's nothing to stop them from becoming the same monoliths that exist as Internet Service Providers. They control the means and have no urge to change. I stand on the fence, wishing there was a better solution to this problem but some times the only way to bring change is to burn it down first and start from scratch.
  • CaptSpify 9y ago
    IMO: The problem is an economic one. Our economic models are so out of touch with reality that there's no way to solve this peacefully within our current system. There's no reason for middle-men or gateways in distributing digital media anymore, but we still don't have a reliable alternative to pay the artist. The distribution middle-men used to do that.
    • colept 9y ago
      This is the problem that is grabbing at me. Well put.
  • 9y ago
• Overtonwindow 9y ago
  This is very interesting, I had not considered that besides blocking ads, we should be blocking the anti-adblocking servers that seek to prevent us from blocking ads. We should also block those anti-ad servers. This is war.
• walterstucco 9y ago
  Another reason to not host freedom tools on Github
• hokkos 9y ago
  Github should have protected easylist from this bullshit DMCA request, here it is on github : https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/ff44d37f62d772bfec5fd4327e4a2009b9ad47aa/2017/2017-08-02-LevenLabs.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/ff44d37f62d772bfec5fd432... Github is the culprit here.
  • dangrossman 9y ago
    Why should Github take on unlimited liability for someone else's code? If a judge agrees that blocking this anti-circumvention technology is illegal (something the DMCA does prohibit), and Github had refused to take it down (which means they don't get safe harbor), then Github is the first-party that is liable for distributing that illegal technology, probably many millions of times. When you start taking statutory fines and multiply them by millions, you end up with numbers that would put Github out of business overnight. Is that beneficial to anyone?
    • hokkos 9y ago
      Github should think about protecting its users, DMCA takedown request only target copyrighted works, not circumvention measures, I understand Github point of view to minimise its work and legal liability, but they have a lot too lose in the eyes of users here. Maybe Github DMCA take down request is wider than the USA one, but it feel like an abuse in this case.
    • notyourday 9y ago
      Because it does not accept unlimited liability by following DMCA takedown procedure. Following it places Github into the DMCA safe-harbor. Not following it opens Github to liability. This is what should have happened: 1. Github is served with a DMCA Takedown notice 2. Github validates that the notice is valid 3. Github takes down the $FILE or $REPO 4. Owner of the Repo contacts Github 5. Github notifies the owner of the repo that it was a DMCA takedown 6. Owner of the repo provides Github with the Counter-notice. 7. Github restores access to the taken down $FILE or $REPO At this point the party issuing takedown must sue the owner of the repo. It cannot go after Github. It also cannot take down the content again using DMCA to github.
• jadeklerk 9y ago
  There is a PR to add it back in: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500 https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500
• cinskiy 9y ago
  Well, I just blocked functionalclam.com in my OS hosts file, try to DMCA that
• bogomipz 9y ago
  >"However, further research showed that this domain hosts the code of an anti-adblocking startup Admiral" Who goes to work for an anti ad blocking startup? What is their mission statement "to make the web a more intrusive place"? I am OK with Ads and understand their purpose in the business model. The reason I use and ad blocker is because of how intrusive they are to consuming actual content. You can subscribe yes but you will still get intrusive ads: http://www.kirkville.com/i-pay-for-news-why-do-i-still-see-ads/ http://www.kirkville.com/i-pay-for-news-why-do-i-still-see-a...
• ftftytfty 9y ago
  Frankly it sickens me that a company is making money out of ripping websites and other companies of their ad revenues.
• f4rker 9y ago
  ad blockers are cool but 1 - they block too much stuff thats not ads 2 - they break sites (I support sites...) 3 - they silently update 4 - their white list dont always work just today I was white listing something and no matter what it didnt work. Ad blockers (and their list) have been a bit lazy, and can stand to do better.
• bogomipz 9y ago
  From a recent WSJ article about anti-ad blocking companies: “We really think the free internet is at risk because of ad-blocking, so these types of solutions are needed to turn the tide”, said Dan Rua, CEO of ad-blocking “revenue recovery” company Admiral, which recently raised $2.5 million to help build its platform."[1] It's amazing how selective the CEO's concern for the "free internet" is. Threatening community github repos with DCMA takedowns is OK though? [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-the-anti-ad-blockers-1465805039 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-the-anti-ad-blocker...
  • wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    From Dan Rua's LinkedIn: >The power of the internet to inform, entertain and liberate mankind is at a crossroads. The future of ad-supported content is in peril, and with it, free access for citizens to critical news, education, discourse and resources the world over. The shorthand name for this looming catastrophe is "adblocking" It's like a pimp claiming the human race is going to stop reproducing and die out because people don't want to pay for their prostitutes
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • skummetmaelk 9y ago
      Ads are a plague that drive content creators toward ever increasing shock value just so that they can get clicks. Quality be damned, views are all that matter. I would say this is more damaging.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  • MichaelDickens 9y ago
    Usually the "free" in "free internet" refers to free-as-in-speech but it sounds like Dan Rua means free as in beer. And it's true that companies are more likely to put up paywalls if they can't make money with ads but he's using the term "free internet" in a misleading way.
• mlaretallack 9y ago
  This is the second time in a few months that I have heared DCMA and github have come up (GadgetBridge). At this point in time I do feel that github's policy on DCMA tale down notices are a little heavy handed am I right in thinking that DCMA is a US only issue?
• JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Note that the offender's privacy policy [1] appears to let users (e.g. you or me) contact support@getadmiral.com "to know whether their Personal Data has been stored and [to] consult the Data Controller to learn about their contents and origin, to verify their accuracy or to ask for them to be supplemented, cancelled, updated or corrected, or for their transformation into anonymous format or to block any data held in violation of the law, as well as to oppose their treatment for any and all legitimate reasons." [1] https://www.iubenda.com/privacy-policy/347981/full-legal https://www.iubenda.com/privacy-policy/347981/full-legal
• MentallyRetired 9y ago
  From Admiral's responding blogpost: > 5. We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit. > Transparent engagement between publishers and visitors is a critical piece of that. Umm, no? Admiral created an account that they hoped would be mistaken as an official github bot or something. And then, instead of asking, they threatened disruption of the repository. So, in summary, they: * Tried to hide their identity * Tried to trick people into thinking they were Github * Threatened, not asked, to remove the site from the list Look, I'm okay with them wanting to remove a server that helps inform users that they'd like to show ads on their customers sites. At the very least, though, be honest about it. Also, bless the EFF, man. Heading over there to donate right now.
  • default-kramer 9y ago
    Also > 3. Circumventing a publisher’s paywall or copyright access control technology is not OK Would any technologist who doesn't work for Admiral consider javascript a "copyright access control technology"? (I'm assuming their product is javascript.)
    • SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      ....yes? But not in the "hide content you've already sent" sense. However, a script that verifies credentials and only then accesses content using those provided credentials sounds like "access control technology". My reasoning is simple: if I block the script and still see the content, it's not access control; if I have to run the script to see the content, it is access control.
  • askvictor 9y ago
    And in one feel swoop they've managed to destroy any good will towards their mission and business model.
• wjdp 9y ago
  Is there a blocklist that contains domains like this? Would want to add that into rotation.
• wyager 9y ago
  Request: someone please make a code-hosting site that's only accessible via TOR.
• JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  So, if blocking domains is illegal, what happens to Parental Controls? Or Open DNS? I sincerely hope Admiral gets smacked hard for this.
• jnagro 9y ago
  It is super ironic that the co-founder @jameshartig was previously at GrooveShark aka "The legality of Grooveshark's business model, which permitted users to upload copyrighted music, remains undetermined."
• TheKarateKid 9y ago
  I hate to say it, but the ad-blocking community is handling this problem the same way governments often handle things: Reactionary instead of pro-active. The real source of the problem with ads, is that almost every ad network allows ads to be self posted with little to no filter. This opens us all up to the abuse from ads we've been experiencing for over a decade now. Could you imagine what would happen if you were allowed to self-post an ad on television without the network manually approving each one? It's time to hold ad networks responsible for their own content. If a virus spreads because of their ads, THEY should be sued, just like MTV and others were when they violated FCC decency rules during the Super Bowl.
  • elihu 9y ago
    I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short little script, rather than playing an audio clip that was provided to them. There are various ways this can and has been applied to Internet ads, like making them text-only. On the other side of things, I would love to see a search engine that pushes sites down in its rankings proportionally to the obnoxiousness of their ads.
    • thesmallestcat 9y ago
      I dislike this more. I can identify most ads quickly and mute them, while on a network like NPR I might be expecting something, you know, interesting until 20 seconds in I realize it's an ad.
    • rsync 9y ago
      "I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short little script" This is not always true - for instance, the "brought to you by" slots at the beginning of the PBS Newshour are advertiser-supplied audio clips.
      • whyenot 9y ago
        but NPR and PBS are not the same thing.
• feelin_googley 9y ago
  A quick Google search reveals the following. "Admiral identifies audiences with ad blockers turned on, works to re-establish those users (by opting in to a lightened ad experience, say, or asking to be whitelisted) and then makes a small cut of every ad served to the reacquired audience." Source: https://adexchanger.com/publishers/another-ad-blocking-solutions-vendor-new-approach/ https://adexchanger.com/publishers/another-ad-blocking-solut... tl;dr Admiral is a startup that measures an audience's "ad block rate". If the rate is high, they then work to "establish explicit value propositions with users and then serve them with minimal tags and tracking". It also mentions plans to try to process micropayments. "Admiral is built for a world where ad blockers have won." Source: Id. tl;dr Unless the founder has changed course from what is described in the 2016 article, as far as I can tell, this startup relies on widespread usage of adblockers. If users do not use adblockers, then this startup has nothing to sell. VC: "What happens if the ad blockers block the servers that serve the ad blocker tracking image?" Founder: "I'll send them DMCA notices." VC: "Excellent. I'm in." ?
  • KGIII 9y ago
    Bordering on off-topic: what is, "Id?"
    • talyian 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idem
      • KGIII 9y ago
        At risk of duplicating, thanks. I thought it was some company.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • hughes 9y ago
      The source is the same as the previous source.
• smegel 9y ago
  What is the IP range of these bastards so I can at least add them to PeerBlock?
  • smegel 9y ago
    So there is a Chrome extensions called Domain Blocker, useful to add your own custom domains. Question is, what else is missing from Ad Blockers that I should add (apart from these *)?
• driverdan 9y ago
  Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list still includes functionalclam. I recommend using it: https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ uBlock Origin includes it.
• alexmat 9y ago
  You can add this list to get around admiral domains: https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/admiral-domains.txt https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/admiral-domains.txt
• edraferi 9y ago
  What's the DMCA rational here? Admiral wants to run code in my browser to offer their service, and thus instructing my browser not to run their code is circumventing them in a way that violates DMCA? Screw that.
• koenigdavidmj 9y ago
  Is there any incentive or law that causes Github to accept digitally submitted DMCA orders through a web form at all? If it was possible for them to require individually signed (by an actual person with a pen, not a picture of a signature), individually snail-mailed requests, then that would at least make the process take O(n) time and O(n) money, making it a bit harder to abuse.
• ThinkBeat 9y ago
  This outlines a great reason as to why Github silo can be risky and have adverse side effects. Does github offer the ability to host repositories in other legal jurisdictions than the US?
• ThinkBeat 9y ago
  This outlines a great reason as to why Github silo can be risky and have adverse side effects. Does github offer the ability to host repositories in other legal jurisdictions than the US?
• ThinkBeat 9y ago
  This outlines a great reason as to why Github silo can be risky and have adverse side effects. Does github offer the ability to host repositories in other legal jurisdictions than the US?
• jgritty 9y ago
  http://i.imgur.com/bhUFTLC.png http://i.imgur.com/bhUFTLC.png
• shmerl 9y ago
  Wow, this really stinks. They (Admiral) supposedly figured out how to use DMCA-1201 to prevent ad blockers from adding their domains. That's a glaring example which shows why this anti-circumvention garbage needs to be completely repealed. As some proposed, they should move the repo out of the jurisdiction with these corrupted anti-circumvention laws.
• epicide 9y ago
  Are they going to issue DMCA takedown requests to the other (currently) 76 forks?
  • bitshiffed 9y ago
    I would assume they'll follow up with a single request targeting all forks. You can see in many of GitHub's other listed takedowns that one request can target multiple repositories and forks at once.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
• gusfoo 9y ago
  You can tell a young person wrote that copy from the use of "on accident" instead of "by accident" on the DMCA image. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5947035/29184514-276eeacc-7e0f-11e7-8a25-339659185ed3.png https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5947035/29184514-2...
• alexc05 9y ago
  I'm struggling to understand how preventing access to a tracking pixel circumvents copyright. Does this make sense to anyone? It sounds like they're "crying DMCA" because someone turned off their analytics? Can analytics be a "right" under copyright?
• bborud 9y ago
  I used to read about 25 or so online news publications each week. A bit more on a monthly basis. I had paid subscriptions to a handful of publications (8-9?), spending more money on these subscriptions than I had ever done for paper newspapers and magazines in the past. Over the past 3-4 years I have ditched most newspapers and I have dropped most subscriptions. For three main reasons: - Both advertising content and the newspapers advertising themselves has gotten really annoying. No, I don't appreciate you throwing modal windows at me. No I'm not going to subscribe to your newsletter. No I don't appreciate having to click away a second or third modal window. - Advertising masquerading as content. Sure, it is marked as "sponsored content", but every effort is made to hide that fact. This is dishonest. - I don't gain anything from reading most of these publications. They don't make me smarter and I don't remember what I read one week later. The bulk of news articles are written by uninformed people incapable of useful analysis. Important news is widely disseminated anyway so I won't miss anything. When the ads are more important than the content, I won't burden them with my page views. It isn't for me. In the process I found that I had been spending too much time reading news. Limiting my news intake to just a few news sources (3-4) whose biases I understand, and at least which I can try to adjust for, is enough. The number of books I've consumed per year has had a sharp uptick since I stopped reading as many news websites.
• mdf 9y ago
  So, if the DMCA request turns out to be valid (e.g. hypothetically in court), shouldn't all the ad-serving domains just include a similar anti-adblock measure on their ad servers, thus making it so, that blocking their servers would count as a circumvention?
• pantalaimon 9y ago
  Can we have a list of domains that should be excluded from these kinds of lists, so they may not be added again by accident?
• mi100hael 9y ago
  > We had no option but to remove the filter without putting the Easylist repo in jeopardy. Or, you know, host your project somewhere that's actually free & open. Yet another reason GitHub is about the worst place to host community software.
• shmerl 9y ago
  Someone should make a separate explicit list with such kind of domains. Let them get the Streisand effect.
• politician 9y ago
  Admiral's product is so poorly designed that it requires cooperation from the browser to work? That violates rule #1 of client/server programming: never trust the client. Instead, they have to abuse the DMCA to cover for their uninformed engineering choices. This is despicable. "Here hold this copyrighted content in memory for me, but don't make any other copies of it because, uh, you don't have the license to make copies of it. Except for, uh, the one that we sent you? To hold in memory? Look, computers are magic. Nevermind. DMCA!"
  • kazagistar 9y ago
    No, they knew exactly what they were doing.
  • codedokode 9y ago
    It is designed perfectly and it works as we see.
• DannyB2 9y ago
  Hey Admiral, and websites using this anti ad blocking technology, I don't want to circumvent your copyright access control. I really don't. All that I ask is a way to quickly and easily identify such sites so that I can block them and never ever visit them again. Never ever. Even if the sites and Admiral quit this despicable reprehensible behavior, I won't know it -- ever. Because I simply will never be back again. Thank you!
• ordu 9y ago
  If I'll write some kind of malware and comine it with technology that helps me to protect digital rights, would antivirus violate DMCA?
• reiichiroh 9y ago
  Now is a good time for me to plug Reek's Anti Anti-Adblock: http://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/ http://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/
• emilfihlman 9y ago
  So wait what, can someone explain: What is being DMCAd here?
• tmsldd 9y ago
  sudo sh -c 'echo "0.0.0.0 functionalclam.com" >> /etc/hosts'
• Akaahn 9y ago
  My web browser, my rules, if this triggers you, fuck right the fuck off.
• bigbugbag 9y ago
  Why use github ? Just move to another service or host your own repo. Be outside US hence outside DMCA reach. problem solved.
• userbinator 9y ago
  One should not need to think too much to realise that if this is allowed to continue, it will set a dangerous precedent of effectively removing the freedom to close one's eyes --- hitherto, it seemed to be accepted even among the strongest DRM supporters that consumers had the right to not consume content they didn't want. They've tried to force (or perhaps "encourage" is the wording they prefer) consumers to consume with things like unskippable video adverts and warnings in DVDs, but AFAIK it's absolutely not illegal to look away (perhaps even at a different TV) or go do something else while that content is playing; now, by effectively trying to say that blocking or denying oneself from consuming --- or letting one's browser or other technology through which one consumes --- certain content, is illegal, they are trying to make it legally enforceable to consume content. I wish all those who are involved or support such insanity would be themselves strapped tightly in front of a computer or TV, with eyelids glued open, and subjected to this force-feeding of content they don't want to see. Ultimately, this loss of control of one's eyes, ears, and mind is something I strongly abhor, strong enough to express in a manner I normally don't partake in: fuck this shit!
• euske 9y ago
  I'd call this the adblock Straisand effect.
• codedokode 9y ago
  The reason why this is possible is because DMCA by itself is biased towards interests of copyright holders and therefore can be abused. You can always claim that some domain is used for protecting copyright and therefore blocking access to that domain as well as distributing software that can do it is clearly a violation of DMCA.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• intrasight 9y ago
  I say don't just move it out of Github - move the list to a blockchain. It's the obvious solution.
• Markoff 9y ago
  why not just host ad filter lists outside US jurisdiction?
• diedyesterday 9y ago
  Admiral's claim does not seem to be entirely implausible. IF author of site A provides content on the condition that viewers also consume embedded content from site B, and then the viewers choose to view A anyway without viewing B (through ad-blocking) is it a violation of A's terms' of use or copyright?
• emh68 9y ago
  How to really fix this: make an extension that detects when a request is made to a domain owned by these scumbags and pop up a warning message, allowing the user to make the right decision and close the tab and go elsewhere.