5 ms·
They're not claiming copyright on the domain name. They're saying that by blocking it, they're violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA.
by ascorbic 9y ago
They're not claiming copyright on the domain name. They're saying that by blocking it, they're violating the anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA.
- AnthonyMouse 9y agoSince when does the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA have anything to do with the notice-and-takedown section of the DMCA?
- ascorbic 9y agoIt doesn't, legally. It does in this case though, because GitHub says to use the same mechanism for takedowns and anti-circumvention requests.
- codedokode 9y agoDoes it really matter? If they cannot send takedown notice they still are allowed to sue Github so Github might want to remove the offending code rather than enter a legal battle with unclear consequences. The admiral website has a copy of a notice [1] if you are interested. [1] https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-access-control-admiral-10-things-to-know/ https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-...
- jfoutz 9y agoOh, that's way more interesting. So they have standing? I can see the argument that altering the execution of the program sent to the users computer is a DMCA violation (i vehemently disagree, but i can see it). But i don't think they didn't actually wrote the page that's delivered to the user.
- ascorbic 9y agoI'd imagine it would technically need to be the publisher or the agent that took legal action. This was clearly an experiment though. Expect much more widespread use and, I'd assume, a court case soon.
- srcmap 9y agoWe wish they claiming copyright on the domain name. In that case, we are legally require to update all DNS servers' entries to remove that name permanently. :-) Or alias it to 0.0.0.0 !!!
- sjwright 9y agoExcept it's not the list which is blocking it, it's the browser plugin...