11 ms·

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 addit

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
    > I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads, Why stop at intrusive ads ? Just block everything that features commercial ads. Though the real issue is not ads per se but the tracking that tags along.
    - Gracana 9y ago
      That would be neat as an experiment. Like, see how far you can go and what you can get to with a "total blocker."
  - alephu5 9y ago
    If it turns out that this type of DMCA use is legally valid, adblockers could be modified to reject pages that embed URLs that have filed such requests. So if a particular site uses admiral to protect its ads, it loses traffic.
- macawfish 9y ago
  I've done this with FB.
- thecrazyone 9y ago
  users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list. This ending up not serving your purpose nor theirs. For instance, let me go out on a limb and point out how some distros of linux insist on shipping without any non-free software. So, a user ends up having to go through hoops to just get an audio of video file playing. I think the analogy Im going for is, you don't want to play by our rules (our license, etc), we'll not use your software (or correspondingly block your site). I'm trying to point out what I think is likely consequence of such an action /impassionate comment
  - kelnos 9y ago
    > users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list. I don't think that's universally true. For me, if a site is broken because blocking ads also makes the content inaccessible, I just close the browser tab and move on with my day. (For a while the LA Times was blocking content in this way, so I just refused to visit their site. I guess it worked; they don't do this anymore.) I don't claim to be the common case, but frankly I don't know what the common case is, and I suspect you don't either, so it could go either way.
  - Gracana 9y ago
    You're definitely right. Our ability to ignore our ideals when we're slightly inconvenienced is why content paired with invasive ads is so effective in the first place.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - yrro 9y ago
    What common audio/video codecs/formats require non-free software to play?
    - btym 9y ago
      DVD, MPEG-2, Flash, MP3 (at least, until all of its patents expire by the end of the year).
throwawaywonk 9y ago
Why is it that the tech set always forgets that CS pedantry != legal pedantry? Have we forgotten about intent? You can't just change the line to a regex that /just happens/ to match that URL and go "neener neener neener it's not the same!" Are you willing to argue in court that that line was changed and it /just so happened/ to match the domain from before? Do you have a plausible explanation for why that change would've been made that doesn't involve "well, we were trying to creatively skirt a DMCA takedown request"?
- stale2002 9y ago
  Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. So one argument to do is this is because it is NOT illegal, and the purpose would be to stop frivolous lawsuits. So yes, it would be trying to creatively skirt frivolous lawsuits. Another legit reason though, is obfuscation. The company that tried to threaten this frivolous lawsuit may have not even noticed, if it was some weird regex. And they'd either not complain, or have to spend a bunch of money tracking down the problem. Both are wins, in my book.
  - smitherfield 9y ago
    >Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. But you'd significantly help the legal case of those claiming it is by trying to obfuscate that you're doing so; they would argue in court it's an implicit admission you "knew it was illegal."
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      > they would argue in court it's an implicit admission you "knew it was illegal." So you'd argue in reply that although you maintain that it's legal, you knew that it'd likely be something that bad actors would file frivolous suit over. Even when you win, being hauled into court is incredibly disruptive.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    Blocking a URL is, in and of itself, not illegal, sure. Blocking a URL that allows you to break a copyright-protection mechanism[1,2]? Well, that's not so clear. It's also unclear whether or not Admiral falls under the umbrella of a copyright-protection mechanism. I really really really want EasyList to be in the right here, and be able to re-add the block without fear, but it's far from clear what all the implications of this are. I'm glad the EFF has stepped in to help them out; I'm content to wait for their opinion (or the opinion of an actual lawyer versed in the subject at hand) on this. In the end, this is just another example of why the DMCA needs to go. [1] Yes, you could say that this is bad design that the mechanism can be broken so easily, but that's not the point: the DMCA doesn't care how good or bad the mechanism is. If you break it, you're in violation. [2] I suppose there's another point to be made: DMCA takedown notices are only for removing content or links to content that contain actual material where copyright has been infringed, not for removing circumvention tools.
fenollp 9y ago
How about having EasyList clients fetch the whole history of the repo? That way any domain that was ever added would be in the blocklist. True negatives should be pretty low.
- nilved 9y ago
  Then they would purge it from the repo. In fact, it's questionably the case that they have abided by the DMCA order, for the very reason that it still exists in the repo history. As far as I know, DMCA takedowns normally lead to closing the entire repo.
  - rad_gruchalski 9y ago
    How about don't host the code at a location which has such hostile laws?
    - hmage 9y ago
      That actually made me think -- is there such location?
      - rad_gruchalski 9y ago
        This is a good question. At least at a location where the US does not have an immediate jurisdiction. It's kinda lame, really, that the whole world has to bend over because all of these services are right there in the US. Make them work, at least. Germany, Sweden come to mind. *edit: removed a redundant word
        thecrazyone 9y ago
        I concur, I think until the world catches up with the innovation happening in the US (I'm guessing that's why this content is hosted on US services), we'll have to put up with this Edit: libertarianism anybody ? :D
      - nilved 9y ago
greesil 9y ago
Why not just use a base 64 representation?
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  How would this help in the long term?
dredmorbius 9y ago
Or hashes. Which will make administration rather more complex.
codedokode 9y ago
You probably did not understand the issue. The domain in question is a part of a copyrigth protection scheme. Blocking access to it is a circumvention of copyright protection scheme and it is illegal under DMCA. No, you cannot block hosts that are a part of a copyright protection scheme and you cannot distribute the software that does that. How you block the domain - with a simple string or an automatically trained neural network - doesn't matter.
- mirimir 9y ago
  I can block anything I like. And I can do whatever I like to help others do that. And I'll make sure that nobody can stop me, or them, or threaten me about it.
  - codedokode 9y ago
    Well, if you do not live in the DMCA country then you are correct.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      I make sure that nobody knows who I am, or where I live in meatspace.
- mrsteveman1 9y ago
  > The domain in question is a part of a copyrigth protection scheme. Blocking access to it is a circumvention of copyright protection scheme and it is illegal under DMCA. You're asserting things to be true that are very much in question, and the assertion borders on the absurd. Is it also a DMCA violation to add firewall rules to ones own network equipment?

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
  > I like your style- maybe hard initially but if we could just stop using pages with intrusive ads, Why stop at intrusive ads ? Just block everything that features commercial ads. Though the real issue is not ads per se but the tracking that tags along.
  - Gracana 9y ago
    That would be neat as an experiment. Like, see how far you can go and what you can get to with a "total blocker."
- alephu5 9y ago
  If it turns out that this type of DMCA use is legally valid, adblockers could be modified to reject pages that embed URLs that have filed such requests. So if a particular site uses admiral to protect its ads, it loses traffic.
macawfish 9y ago
I've done this with FB.
thecrazyone 9y ago
users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list. This ending up not serving your purpose nor theirs. For instance, let me go out on a limb and point out how some distros of linux insist on shipping without any non-free software. So, a user ends up having to go through hoops to just get an audio of video file playing. I think the analogy Im going for is, you don't want to play by our rules (our license, etc), we'll not use your software (or correspondingly block your site). I'm trying to point out what I think is likely consequence of such an action /impassionate comment
- kelnos 9y ago
  > users of your list will not get this. And will stop using your list. I don't think that's universally true. For me, if a site is broken because blocking ads also makes the content inaccessible, I just close the browser tab and move on with my day. (For a while the LA Times was blocking content in this way, so I just refused to visit their site. I guess it worked; they don't do this anymore.) I don't claim to be the common case, but frankly I don't know what the common case is, and I suspect you don't either, so it could go either way.
- Gracana 9y ago
  You're definitely right. Our ability to ignore our ideals when we're slightly inconvenienced is why content paired with invasive ads is so effective in the first place.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- yrro 9y ago
  What common audio/video codecs/formats require non-free software to play?
  - btym 9y ago
    DVD, MPEG-2, Flash, MP3 (at least, until all of its patents expire by the end of the year).

throwawaywonk 9y ago

Why is it that the tech set always forgets that CS pedantry != legal pedantry? Have we forgotten about intent? You can't just change the line to a regex that /just happens/ to match that URL and go "neener neener neener it's not the same!" Are you willing to argue in court that that line was changed and it /just so happened/ to match the domain from before? Do you have a plausible explanation for why that change would've been made that doesn't involve "well, we were trying to creatively skirt a DMCA takedown request"?

stale2002 9y ago
Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. So one argument to do is this is because it is NOT illegal, and the purpose would be to stop frivolous lawsuits. So yes, it would be trying to creatively skirt frivolous lawsuits. Another legit reason though, is obfuscation. The company that tried to threaten this frivolous lawsuit may have not even noticed, if it was some weird regex. And they'd either not complain, or have to spend a bunch of money tracking down the problem. Both are wins, in my book.
- smitherfield 9y ago
  >Well, first of all, blocking a URL is not against the DMCA. But you'd significantly help the legal case of those claiming it is by trying to obfuscate that you're doing so; they would argue in court it's an implicit admission you "knew it was illegal."
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > they would argue in court it's an implicit admission you "knew it was illegal." So you'd argue in reply that although you maintain that it's legal, you knew that it'd likely be something that bad actors would file frivolous suit over. Even when you win, being hauled into court is incredibly disruptive.
- kelnos 9y ago
  Blocking a URL is, in and of itself, not illegal, sure. Blocking a URL that allows you to break a copyright-protection mechanism[1,2]? Well, that's not so clear. It's also unclear whether or not Admiral falls under the umbrella of a copyright-protection mechanism. I really really really want EasyList to be in the right here, and be able to re-add the block without fear, but it's far from clear what all the implications of this are. I'm glad the EFF has stepped in to help them out; I'm content to wait for their opinion (or the opinion of an actual lawyer versed in the subject at hand) on this. In the end, this is just another example of why the DMCA needs to go. [1] Yes, you could say that this is bad design that the mechanism can be broken so easily, but that's not the point: the DMCA doesn't care how good or bad the mechanism is. If you break it, you're in violation. [2] I suppose there's another point to be made: DMCA takedown notices are only for removing content or links to content that contain actual material where copyright has been infringed, not for removing circumvention tools.

fenollp 9y ago

How about having EasyList clients fetch the whole history of the repo? That way any domain that was ever added would be in the blocklist. True negatives should be pretty low.

nilved 9y ago
Then they would purge it from the repo. In fact, it's questionably the case that they have abided by the DMCA order, for the very reason that it still exists in the repo history. As far as I know, DMCA takedowns normally lead to closing the entire repo.
- rad_gruchalski 9y ago
  How about don't host the code at a location which has such hostile laws?
  - hmage 9y ago
    That actually made me think -- is there such location?
    - rad_gruchalski 9y ago
      This is a good question. At least at a location where the US does not have an immediate jurisdiction. It's kinda lame, really, that the whole world has to bend over because all of these services are right there in the US. Make them work, at least. Germany, Sweden come to mind. *edit: removed a redundant word
      - thecrazyone 9y ago
        I concur, I think until the world catches up with the innovation happening in the US (I'm guessing that's why this content is hosted on US services), we'll have to put up with this Edit: libertarianism anybody ? :D
    - nilved 9y ago

greesil 9y ago

Why not just use a base 64 representation?

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
How would this help in the long term?

dredmorbius 9y ago

Or hashes. Which will make administration rather more complex.

codedokode 9y ago

You probably did not understand the issue. The domain in question is a part of a copyrigth protection scheme. Blocking access to it is a circumvention of copyright protection scheme and it is illegal under DMCA. No, you cannot block hosts that are a part of a copyright protection scheme and you cannot distribute the software that does that. How you block the domain - with a simple string or an automatically trained neural network - doesn't matter.

mirimir 9y ago
I can block anything I like. And I can do whatever I like to help others do that. And I'll make sure that nobody can stop me, or them, or threaten me about it.
- codedokode 9y ago
  Well, if you do not live in the DMCA country then you are correct.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    I make sure that nobody knows who I am, or where I live in meatspace.
mrsteveman1 9y ago
> The domain in question is a part of a copyrigth protection scheme. Blocking access to it is a circumvention of copyright protection scheme and it is illegal under DMCA. You're asserting things to be true that are very much in question, and the assertion borders on the absurd. Is it also a DMCA violation to add firewall rules to ones own network equipment?