17 ms·

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/

• 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.
      • ams6110 9y ago
        I already did.
        • Overtonwindow 9y ago
          I hadn't edited a hosts file since college, boy that was fun!
          • jasonkostempski 9y ago
            You can add it to "My filters" within uO. Host file has no wildcard support which you need for full coverage.
            • alexc05 9y ago
              what is uO? I've been using a hosts file. I'd love to up my game. Ahhh... other comments are saying https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin
              • KGIII 9y ago
                Tangentially related, the author of that project has also created uMatrix. Well, it's the micro symbol, but you get the idea. uMatrix is pretty much like an old school software firewall, except it is just for your browser. It works by whitelisting, instead of blacklisting. There is a bit of a learning curve, but after you've visited your most visited sites, it becomes a fairly easy solution. As you fist visit sites, you configure it to only allow what is needed to get the functionality you want. Once done, you don't generally have to muck with it further. As stated, there is a learning curve. There are many choices of what to allow and block, but you can surely figure it out. You can even export and share your configuration. I am not affiliated. There is a version for Firefox, Chrome, and my beloved Opera. It'll probably work in Pale Moon, Vivaldi, etc... It eliminates the need for multiple extensions. I've been very happy with it.
        • apple4ever 9y ago
    • criddell 9y ago
      IMHO opinion, this shouldn't even be necessary. I use ad-blockers in every browser and I would have no problem if that were part of the headers my browser emits ( have no idea if it is or not). If websites don't want to serve me because I'm blocking ads, so be it.
• chad-autry 9y ago
  From what I can tell, the DMCA does apply (sort of) Admiral seems to be a paywall server basically. If blocking their domain gave access to paywalled content, then the DMCA seems to apply http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-controls http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-cont... However, that defense is a bit flimsy to me since the fall back to having the paywall blocked could/should be a "Paywall blocked, please disable your addblocker to gain access to our content" msg. Anyhow, that is immaterial because so long as they don't actually serve adds, Easylist could/would have removed the line no problem. Admiral should have just said "Our domain doesn't serve adds, we work on paid content access" and they would have been removed without all this hassle.
  • guelo 9y ago
    The only hope against the DMCA is that eventually the takedowns get so ridiculous that courts are forced to strike it down as the unconstitutional garbage it is.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • anilgulecha 9y ago
    By that logic, ad servers themselves could cite their own copyright of ads, and thus request removal from easylist! EFF has gotten in touch with easylist according to [1]. That's good. [1] 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...
  • kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    It's their fault for delivering data they want restricted. I'm under no obligation to make every HTTP request they want me to or execute any untrusted JavaScript. Nor am I obligated to render their HTML as intended. If they want these things then they need every user to enter onto a binding contract agreeing to those terms.
    • djsumdog 9y ago
• vinylkey 9y ago
  So, in that blog post, they state: "We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit." Their request is here: https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562a5871fc7504c756e4b2bd5bc#commitcomment-23157626 https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/1ba8d4afeec6d562... And was made by this account: https://github.com/dmcahelper https://github.com/dmcahelper So, they made a github account the same day they made the "request" with an account that in no way indicates where the request is coming from? The github profile bio reads "Help all parties understand and resolve DMCA issues efficiently and effectively to minimize file and repository impacts." Perhaps they should have used a bit more transparency when asking for the offending url to be removed from the repo, instead of acting like a spammy copyright boogyman, then immediately resorting to a dubious DMCA takedown request.
  • jxramos 9y ago
    I wonder if folks could get sneaky and change the design from a literal url to a regular expression tailored to single out that url but would also include additional sites that are just gibberish and could be relaxed if useful sites ever do fall into the URL overlap. This might be a new line of research to craft regExs to filter out a specific string while also throwing out a bunch of sister gibberish strings that would be unlikely to be adopted simply by virtue of language.
    • Gracana 9y ago
      I'd rather just go a level up... You don't want users to tamper with your ads? Ok, we'll block your entire site. No tampering.
      • acdjuiamadfn 9y ago
        I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads, firms may finally listen and stop using those ads
        • bigbugbag 9y ago
• jrochkind1 9y ago
  DMCA is not the appropriate tool for this. Filing a DMCA takedown notice when you know that there is not any copyright infringement going on in the document you are asking to be taken down is a misuse of the DMCA, and an entity filing such a takedown can be liable for any monetary damages or attorney fess of the other party. Although I don't know that's ever happened, it's in the law as a penalty for intentional misuse of a DMCA takedown notice. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 It may very well be that the URL should have been removed, with regard to Easylist policies, github policies, or even some other law. But not DMCA takedown notice. If DMCA takedown notice was the only tool available to them, then they had no tools available to them, because DMCA was not a tool legally available for asking someone to remove a URL from a list. A URL in a list is not possibly copyright infringement. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just my understanding for sake of discussion of a hypothetical)
  • danarmak 9y ago
    The DMCA doesn't just let you request the takedown of copyrighted content. It lets you request the takedown of tools which can be used to "circumvent technological restrictions" on accessing other, unrelated copyrighted content. So for instance, when the CSS encryption on DVDs was broken, there were DMCA takedown requests issued to sites hosting the deCSS decryption code, even though the copyright of that code itself wasn't at issue. ETA: a comment below corrects me, saying that the DMCA prohibits distribution of circumvention tools (i.e. makes it illegal and even criminal I think), but doesn't allow takedown notices for such tools: you have to actually sue them in court. So this takedown notice seems to have been incorrect even if the DMCA is invoked.
    • jrochkind1 9y ago
      That could be, cite to the law or description of it? I'm interested in learning more. What I see in the law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512) is that a "notification of claimed infringement" must include "Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site." Github's own guidelines to DMCA takedown notices say "Identify the copyrighted work you believe has been infringed." https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/ https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-... If the notice did not identify a work believed to have been infringed, then why did Github respond to it? Why don't they follow their own process? If the notice did identify a work being infringed, then they are probably wrong because you can't infringe a copyrighted work by listing a URL in a list. I guess actually getting damages might require proving they _knew_ that, and be generally infeasible/cost prohibitive. There are some problems with the DMCA regime.
• cyphar 9y ago
  > From all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in easylist. A domain can be trademarked. I believe you can trademark a domain, but trademarks are irrelevant to this discussion. The DMCA is a copyright law. The key questions are: a) Can you have copyright over a domain? (According to https://copyright.gov https://copyright.gov, no) b) If you could, would having a list of them constitute fair use? (Almost certainly, otherwise all search engines would be illegal.)
  • Animats 9y ago
    It's not clear how trademarks would apply here. I can write "General Motors". I can write about General Motors. I just can't impersonate General Motors or their products. That's trademark.
    • cyphar 9y ago
      That was my point. GP mentioned trademarks for no reason and I said that the DMCA is a copyright law (that's what the C stands for), and that trademark law is irrelevant to this discussion. I also agree that even if trademarks mattered in this case, it still wouldn't be infringement. On the other hand, it looks like it was an improper use of the DMCA because they're claiming that EasyList is an anti-circumvention tool (effectively arguing that it breaks DRM).
• porker 9y ago
  In which countries could you host, where the DMCA isn't applicable or enforced?
  • Markoff 9y ago
    anywhere but US, already EU countries definition of legality of streaming should be enough to safely just filters lists from what i remember Spain and Central Europe are very laid back regarding your rights to non-commercial steaming of copies of works you don't actually own
  • jerf 9y ago
    The DMCA is United States-specific. Copyright laws are very widespread and harmonized to some extent by international treaties such as the Berne Convention; a Google search for that term can lead you down the right path. (I'm not trying to explain anything, just give you some good search pointers if you're interested in researching yourself.)
• Overtonwindow 9y ago
  This might create a new front in the war against ads. You'll have ad blockers, then they'll build in a component to block anti-adblock mechanisms, which will force the ad makers to employ more countermeasures... I don't see how the content providers will ever win this war. They have more to lose here.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • Nexxxeh 9y ago
    Isn't that front already open? >uBO-Extra >A companion extension to uBlock Origin: to gain ability to foil early anti-user mechanisms working around content blockers or even a browser privacy settings. I think /u/gorhill is the lord of this particular war, and his followers are armed to the teeth. I type this on Firefox on Android with uBlock Origin. I check his github occasionally to see if he accepts donations, and I donate to a couple of the lists occasionally. In the war analogy, we have the best arms dealers. They other side is fighting a losing war.
    • KGIII 9y ago
      I have checked multiple times and gorhill doesn't appear to accept donations. I seem to recall reading a thread where they indicated they didn't want to ever be considered to be beholden to anyone. As mentioned above, uMatrix is my favorite. Once configured, it is easy... There is a learning curve. I'd donate regularly, but that doesn't appear likely. I greatly appreciate their work.
• xroche 9y ago
  > 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. This. This is the main topic here. The wide use of centralized services (such as Github, but it applies also to Facebook, Google et al.) makes you dependent to corporate decisions, including coward (or maybe rational) decisions towards freedom of their users. This is also why linux kernel developers will never, ever use a service like Github. Apart from scalability issues, the single point of failure that these services are (not for technical reasons, but for political reasons) is simply scary. TL;DR: Assholes who send buggy DMCA is not the issue here. Depending on a centralized service is.
  • matt4077 9y ago
    It's not Github's job to stand up to DMCA notices. The law requires them to forward them to the account publishing the content without any consideration of the merits. Then, easylist has the option to comply or refuse.
    • throw2016 9y ago
      That's besides the point. It's the reason open source projects should not depend on centralized sites like github or any other site that make this kind of disruptive automated dmca take down easy. It should take much more legal effort and 'application of mind' to effect disruption.
    • CaptSpify 9y ago
      > It's not Github's job to stand up to DMCA notices. I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing for the legal grounds here. I'm not a lawyer, so I will leave that to them. I'm arguing from a more moral/ethical stance. I'd like to disagree with you. By allowing you to run under their umbrella, I feel that Github has a responsibility to take care of you, and the data that you put on their site. I feel that it is quite insincere for them to say "Sure, put your code on our site!" but then kick you to the curb as soon as there's any trouble. There's definitely a level of extremity that I don't expect from them: I think that after a certain amount of legal argument, they should pass it to the uploader, but I feel like their default attitude should be "no, you can't just attack the uploader because you feel like it." It sends a clear message to the FOSS community that they don't care about taking care of their own, which is bad for Github, and bad for the committers. I'd be curious though: Why do you think that "The law requires them to forward them to the account publishing the content without any consideration of the merits"? It's my understanding that they do have some grounds here as it is their site. EDIT: I reworded my post as the original was rude, and accusatory.
• kakarot 9y ago
  Good to hear. I sincerely hope this turns into a lawsuit to scare off others who may be watching the outcome of this to decide if they should try the DMCA route, too.
• Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  Even if we take for granted the absurd premise that this is "copy protection circumvention", it's still nonsense for the same reason that gun manufacturers aren't sued for murders.
• Fiahil 9y ago
  From the original github commit: > With all these dozens of domains (over a hundred), it sure smells like they're incorporating a HSTS fingerprinting attack into their product portfolio. HSTS fingerprinting enables a server to tag every browser with an n-bit (ie: 100 domains is 100 bits) unique identifier so you can track that browser whenever it returns (or wherever it goes). Since users cannot clear their "HSTS cookies" as it were, this fingerprint remains permanently associated with that browser. > > Wonderful feature for an ad agency to track each visitor indefinitely. Even while in Private Browsing / Incognito mode. Okay. Let's eradicate them from the surface of this planet.
  • Silhouette 9y ago
    Or, more constructively, go after them in the EU, where such practices would surely be illegal under the so-called cookie law (which is actually about storing information in a user's browser more generally, and not specific to cookies at all). As long as that really is what they're doing, of course.
  • dane-pgp 9y ago
    Couldn't they just use 100 subdomains for their 100 bits? Maybe we need a browser extension (or just a website) that instructs your browser to make requests to the HTTPS version of domains that are found to be used to set HSTS cookies, thus "blowing the fuses" and making those domains unusable for providing bits of entropy. In fact, rather than blowing all the fuses, the extension/website could blow just a random few, as a bit mask, giving you someone else's ID number and ruining the ad company's profiling/analytics. That way you would be helping people who weren't using this defence, rather than just having your visits not added to any profile.
• revelation 9y ago
  GitHub is just the platform. If they get a DMCA complaint, procedure says they should contact the repository owner. The repository owner receiving a fraudulent notice sends a one-line email stating "consider this my DMCA counter notice". The content stays online, the DMCA notice does nothing and the only avenue now is for Admiral to sue, which of course they are not prepared to do. You post an entry on your blog ridiculing them and their VC funded shenanigans and HN gets a good laugh out of it.