5 ms·

please show me on the doll where easylist caused copyright infringement. admiral provides some service. some people do not want it. the list is not owned by ad

by swang 9y ago

please show me on the doll where easylist caused copyright infringement. admiral provides some service. some people do not want it. the list is not owned by admiral and easylist does not go into the functionalclam website, nor is it a list of results to copyright material. what exactly does a text file do to violate the dmca? this is setting a dangerous precedent.

sbarre 9y ago
Did you understand the comment you replied to? The DMCA is not just about direct copyright infringement, but also about preventing the circumvention of technological protections for copyrighted content. No one is saying there was copyright infringement here. You can think that this is super bogus (I sure do) but make sure you understand the nature of what you're mad about. ;-)
- walterstucco 9y ago
  Blocking a domain does not circumvent any copyrighted content distribution It's like saying that turning off TV block the distribution of GOT hence is a tool to circumvent HBO copyright
  - jasonlotito 9y ago
    The mechanism in place here is that the domain provides code that sites use to will block content if the visitor is using an ad blocker. The argument being made is that by preventing this code from running by blocking the domain, the site thinks you should have access when in reality, they don't want to serve the content up to you. As for your TV comparison, the better comparison is probably with satellite TVs, where you are just decoding signals being sent to you anyways, and if they don't want you watching those signals, they shouldn't send them to you. It's not the same, but it's far closer than your comparison. Note, I'm not backing either side with this post. Only explaining the argument so you have a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, but understanding the rational is important.
- swang 9y ago
  again, what does a text file do to violate the dmca? what's next, a 128-bit number? IANAL, so i guess until it goes to the court and is decided, we won't know.
  - edraferi 9y ago
    The complaint alleges that text file is used to configure software in such a way that it the software circumvents their copyrights, thus the text file itself is a tool for circumventing copyright and violates DMCA. It's just super dumb, really.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Actually, yes. This number is illegal: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  - sbarre 9y ago
    It was decided in court already actually (maybe you were being sarcastic here?) back in 2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://cyber.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/appeals/opinion.html https://cyber.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/appeals/opinion.htm...
- lloeki 9y ago
  What about this? - Host content A subject to copyright on site X - Devise platform Y on site Z whose claimed role is to check whether user has rights to access content A - Send DMCA on any list or apparatus that tries to block site Z on the ground that it would be a circumvention attempt of platform Y to unlawfully access content A - Piggy-back on platform Y to do some tracking/stat building about ad-blocking - Manically laugh at your brilliant scheme Note that content A and site X could literally be anything and anywhere, possibly even as trivial as a haiku such as "our hard work / by these words guarded / please don't steal". It doesn't even matter that no one is ever meant to ever see the copyrighted work. In this case the copyrighted work could very well be the text/image displayed when ad-blocking is detected, making A == Y and Z == X to confuse everyone while they think this is about displaying ads W. To sum it up: ad blocking enabled -> copyrighted work displayed -> user views content unlawfully -> ad blocker just circumvented a technological restriction intended to prevent this -> DMCA applies. Another possibility is that platform Y is preventing ads W to be shown to a certain theoretical group G of people, hence if you are blocking Y, control about W cannot be enforced, whether you were part of group G or not (and of course you were not, but then even though you're not infringing on copyright about seeing W, you're still infringing on circumvention of a device intended to control copyright of W). Totally roundabout, entirely bogus, but hey, not the first time such heavily pictured crap could still hold water in court.
  - codedokode 9y ago
    That is smart but the primary reason why that is possible is the copyright laws that are biased towards the interests of copyright holders.

by swang 9y ago

sbarre 9y ago

Did you understand the comment you replied to? The DMCA is not just about direct copyright infringement, but also about preventing the circumvention of technological protections for copyrighted content. No one is saying there was copyright infringement here. You can think that this is super bogus (I sure do) but make sure you understand the nature of what you're mad about. ;-)

walterstucco 9y ago
Blocking a domain does not circumvent any copyrighted content distribution It's like saying that turning off TV block the distribution of GOT hence is a tool to circumvent HBO copyright
- jasonlotito 9y ago
  The mechanism in place here is that the domain provides code that sites use to will block content if the visitor is using an ad blocker. The argument being made is that by preventing this code from running by blocking the domain, the site thinks you should have access when in reality, they don't want to serve the content up to you. As for your TV comparison, the better comparison is probably with satellite TVs, where you are just decoding signals being sent to you anyways, and if they don't want you watching those signals, they shouldn't send them to you. It's not the same, but it's far closer than your comparison. Note, I'm not backing either side with this post. Only explaining the argument so you have a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, but understanding the rational is important.
swang 9y ago
again, what does a text file do to violate the dmca? what's next, a 128-bit number? IANAL, so i guess until it goes to the court and is decided, we won't know.
- edraferi 9y ago
  The complaint alleges that text file is used to configure software in such a way that it the software circumvents their copyrights, thus the text file itself is a tool for circumventing copyright and violates DMCA. It's just super dumb, really.
- kuschku 9y ago
  Actually, yes. This number is illegal: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
- sbarre 9y ago
  It was decided in court already actually (maybe you were being sarcastic here?) back in 2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://cyber.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/appeals/opinion.html https://cyber.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/appeals/opinion.htm...
lloeki 9y ago
What about this? - Host content A subject to copyright on site X - Devise platform Y on site Z whose claimed role is to check whether user has rights to access content A - Send DMCA on any list or apparatus that tries to block site Z on the ground that it would be a circumvention attempt of platform Y to unlawfully access content A - Piggy-back on platform Y to do some tracking/stat building about ad-blocking - Manically laugh at your brilliant scheme Note that content A and site X could literally be anything and anywhere, possibly even as trivial as a haiku such as "our hard work / by these words guarded / please don't steal". It doesn't even matter that no one is ever meant to ever see the copyrighted work. In this case the copyrighted work could very well be the text/image displayed when ad-blocking is detected, making A == Y and Z == X to confuse everyone while they think this is about displaying ads W. To sum it up: ad blocking enabled -> copyrighted work displayed -> user views content unlawfully -> ad blocker just circumvented a technological restriction intended to prevent this -> DMCA applies. Another possibility is that platform Y is preventing ads W to be shown to a certain theoretical group G of people, hence if you are blocking Y, control about W cannot be enforced, whether you were part of group G or not (and of course you were not, but then even though you're not infringing on copyright about seeing W, you're still infringing on circumvention of a device intended to control copyright of W). Totally roundabout, entirely bogus, but hey, not the first time such heavily pictured crap could still hold water in court.
- codedokode 9y ago
  That is smart but the primary reason why that is possible is the copyright laws that are biased towards the interests of copyright holders.