4 ms·

An adblocker is not a tool which can be used to "circumvent technological restrictions" on accessing other, unrelated copyrighted content. It is a tool to restr

by JBSay 9y ago

An adblocker is not a tool which can be used to "circumvent technological restrictions" on accessing other, unrelated copyrighted content. It is a tool to restrict access to content.

dane-pgp 9y ago
At first glance you're right, but it's not hard to imagine an ad system which makes the text of a website invisible (or scrambled) until the advert has loaded, and imagine an ad blocker which is designed to do the unscrambling without rendering the ad. I don't know if that's the precise situation here, but if the ad blocker is intentionally carrying out a process like this to access the copyrighted work of the website without obeying the restrictions of the technological control process, then I could see that falling well within the bounds of the DMCA.
- stordoff 9y ago
  AFAICT, the relevant provision of the DMCA here is "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". Is there any elaboration on what "effectively controls access" means (e.g. in case law or in the statute that I missed)? Does a system that fails open (the only thing listed in the EasyList commit was the domain name, so a network error would replicate the same situation) fall within the scope of the provision?
  - mrsteveman1 9y ago
    > Is there any elaboration on what "effectively controls access" means Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.[1] involved circumvention of a system that "effectively controls access" to Mac OS X, preventing it from being installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple's anti-circumvention system is (in part) that some of the important system binaries are encrypted, the kernel transparently decrypts them when they are executed. The key isn't secret (in fact it's a constant that hasn't changed in 10+ years), but it is only distributed inside the SMC chip on the main board of a real Mac. There's no question that encryption is generally an effective access control method, it can't be circumvented without either having the key or breaking the encryption system in use. The court found that regardless of how trivial it was to obtain the key, the fact that it was encrypted made it "effective": > Psystar contends that Apple's anti-circumvention technology was ineffective because the decryption key for circumvention is publicly available on the internet. This argument fails. > "The fact that circumvention devices may be widely available does not mean that a technological measure is not, as the DMCA provides, effectively protecting the rights of copyright owners in the ordinary course of its operation." Sony Computer Entm't Am., Inc. v. Divineo, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 2d 957, 942 965 (N.D.Cal.2006). > Generally, measures based on encryption "effectively control" access to copyrighted works. Here, when the decryption key was not employed, the encryption effectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X. And that is all that is required. > See Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 318 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (noting that when a decryption program was not employed, the encryption worked to control access to the protected work). > Accordingly, Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention. Apple's motion for summary judgment on its DMCA claim must be granted.[4] [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1557201/apple-inc-v-psystar-corp/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1557201/apple-inc-v-ps...

by JBSay 9y ago

An adblocker is not a tool which can be used to "circumvent technological restrictions" on accessing other, unrelated copyrighted content. It is a tool to restrict access to content.

dane-pgp 9y ago

At first glance you're right, but it's not hard to imagine an ad system which makes the text of a website invisible (or scrambled) until the advert has loaded, and imagine an ad blocker which is designed to do the unscrambling without rendering the ad. I don't know if that's the precise situation here, but if the ad blocker is intentionally carrying out a process like this to access the copyrighted work of the website without obeying the restrictions of the technological control process, then I could see that falling well within the bounds of the DMCA.

stordoff 9y ago
AFAICT, the relevant provision of the DMCA here is "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". Is there any elaboration on what "effectively controls access" means (e.g. in case law or in the statute that I missed)? Does a system that fails open (the only thing listed in the EasyList commit was the domain name, so a network error would replicate the same situation) fall within the scope of the provision?
- mrsteveman1 9y ago
  > Is there any elaboration on what "effectively controls access" means Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.[1] involved circumvention of a system that "effectively controls access" to Mac OS X, preventing it from being installed on non-Apple hardware. Apple's anti-circumvention system is (in part) that some of the important system binaries are encrypted, the kernel transparently decrypts them when they are executed. The key isn't secret (in fact it's a constant that hasn't changed in 10+ years), but it is only distributed inside the SMC chip on the main board of a real Mac. There's no question that encryption is generally an effective access control method, it can't be circumvented without either having the key or breaking the encryption system in use. The court found that regardless of how trivial it was to obtain the key, the fact that it was encrypted made it "effective": > Psystar contends that Apple's anti-circumvention technology was ineffective because the decryption key for circumvention is publicly available on the internet. This argument fails. > "The fact that circumvention devices may be widely available does not mean that a technological measure is not, as the DMCA provides, effectively protecting the rights of copyright owners in the ordinary course of its operation." Sony Computer Entm't Am., Inc. v. Divineo, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 2d 957, 942 965 (N.D.Cal.2006). > Generally, measures based on encryption "effectively control" access to copyrighted works. Here, when the decryption key was not employed, the encryption effectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X. And that is all that is required. > See Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 318 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (noting that when a decryption program was not employed, the encryption worked to control access to the protected work). > Accordingly, Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention. Apple's motion for summary judgment on its DMCA claim must be granted.[4] [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1557201/apple-inc-v-psystar-corp/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1557201/apple-inc-v-ps...