5 ms·

This is my article from 2017. Here's a short update on what happened since then: 1. DMCA takedowns did not destroy ad blocking (thank god), but there were a c

This is my article from 2017. Here's a short update on what happened since then: 1. DMCA takedowns did not destroy ad blocking (thank god), but there were a couple more times when it was tried, nothing huge though. 2. Streisand effect is a thing and the domain in question was blocked by everyone and everywhere. There was even a special filter list and later a browser extension which only purpose was to block such domains. It got some traction but later got abandoned: https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock. If something like that happens again I am pretty sure it can be revived very quickly. 3. The corporations still try different angles to prohibit ad blocking. The last example I know about is something like this: Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.

kekebo 4y ago
Thanks for the update. Do you have any insight into wether a copyright claim like the one used by Axel Springer stands on valid legal ground (wether in Germany or elsewhere)?
- ameshkov 4y ago
  I only talked with the layer of the defending side. They say that this is a nonsense, but with such a complex matter you can never be absolutely sure.
  - axus 4y ago
    It might actually be a problem for shared service that modifies a page outside your home, but a personal ad-blocker is equivalent to the scissors you used to clip the ads out of a magazine.
    - DocTomoe 4y ago
      Which is a great analogy that shows how difficult the argument is to decide. If you take a scissor to a reproduction of a piece of art you have not created yourself (and for which the protection timeframe has not ended yet), create snippets, and rearrange them, this can be considered an Urheberrecht violation[1]. No one would consider doing the same to a newspaper the same. [1] The distinction here is relevant: German copyright is not like US copyright - it can't be sold away, you can only license out individual derived rights, and it also allows for protection against "abuse of a work", e.g. doing something with it the original creator disapproves of[2]. If that always applies to the removal of ads has not been decided in a final decision. [2] "The author has the right to prohibit any distortion or other interference with his work that is likely to jeopardize his legitimate intellectual or personal interests in the work." Art 14 UrhG
    - charlesrocket 4y ago
      Cutting the magazine you own is not the same tho
WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
> Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. In answer, I should probably invoke accessibility laws, asserting that ads make my blood pressure rise and induce vomiting. Also, since parodies have been deemed fair use since about forever, what I’m reading is fine parodies, which are exactly the originals except they don’t have ads.
- thfuran 4y ago
  But that's all obvious nonsense.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Perhaps. But "making sense" is generally not a priority for the law. And taking such a stance might be pretty useful, on the PR/politics side...
    - trothamel 4y ago
      Making sense is usually a priority for the judges that run the court cases that define what the law is/means.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      Making sense is a high priority for legal arguments. You may be unfamiliar with the context in which things are meant to make sense though.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  You don't even need to make up a reason. I'm visually impaired in a way that has substantial cortical visual impairment, issues with movement, and issues with crowding. Ads are genuinely an accessibility problem for me and people like me.
- anthk 4y ago
  I don't modify the page, I just ban the browser to fetch some domains. Try banning hosts file usage, Axel Springer. Also, good luck with that clause against Links, Lynx and Dillo.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tazjin 4y ago
> So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. That seems absurd. I just reject their request to fetch some _additional_ information, I don't modify the "text of their request" as such. If that breaks their sites (as it usually does), that's their problem - not mine.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  I will entertain their terms so long as they agree to a contract stipulating terms for executing code on my computer.
  - evnix 4y ago
    This! it is your machine at the end of the day. we should have an option not to use a company or their services which they are forcing on us. I had a neighbor who was sent an invoice, he had cancelled his internet connection 3 months ago and was later told they need a cancellation request in writing. so he sent an equivalent invoice to them asking for rent for their modem which was consuming place in his house. he did not have to pay in the end.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    This sounds clever, but it's actually diametrically opposed to the protocol model. The problem is companies push unilateral contracts of adhesion that you're "free" to take or leave. So if the contract regime ruled computer interactions (as "remote attestation" is poised to do) then you'd find yourself at the pointy end of a new stick. It's the same reason US privacy regulation is doomed to failure unless it frames consent the same way the GDPR did. Not merely as something that is given once (and then vectoralized/sold), but rather something that needs to be given on an ongoing basis and can be withdrawn at any time.
- epicide 4y ago
  Right. If I request they snail mail me a copy of some document, they are free to reject the request. However, if they send me the document, I am free to tear off pieces or color on it with crayons.
hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
> Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. Suppose it's true and that they are copyright holders for all these ads (they are not). Now, when the publisher gets a newspaper out, the content is just as they wanted. But when I take that newspaper home and decide to tear out a page or whatever fragment of it, it's none of their business. The filtering is being done locally, EasyList is not publishing an adless version of their websites.
netr0ute 4y ago
> subject to copyright law. This exact thing happened with Nintendo decades ago, and it turned out to be a nothing burger.
garfieldnate 4y ago
Reminds me of a recent discovery on my device. I found out it's not possible for me to take screenshots on Netflix or Prime Video unless I go into Chrome settings and turn off hardware acceleration. It turns out that newer displays have DRM baked into them that prevents you from taking screenshots of your own freaking screen. I feel stupid for never having known that, but more importantly completely violated. This is my machine, and I choose what do on it, and how did I never know about this before? I feel the same way about sites that turn off right-click or text copying.

kekebo 4y ago

Thanks for the update. Do you have any insight into wether a copyright claim like the one used by Axel Springer stands on valid legal ground (wether in Germany or elsewhere)?

ameshkov 4y ago
I only talked with the layer of the defending side. They say that this is a nonsense, but with such a complex matter you can never be absolutely sure.
- axus 4y ago
  It might actually be a problem for shared service that modifies a page outside your home, but a personal ad-blocker is equivalent to the scissors you used to clip the ads out of a magazine.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    Which is a great analogy that shows how difficult the argument is to decide. If you take a scissor to a reproduction of a piece of art you have not created yourself (and for which the protection timeframe has not ended yet), create snippets, and rearrange them, this can be considered an Urheberrecht violation[1]. No one would consider doing the same to a newspaper the same. [1] The distinction here is relevant: German copyright is not like US copyright - it can't be sold away, you can only license out individual derived rights, and it also allows for protection against "abuse of a work", e.g. doing something with it the original creator disapproves of[2]. If that always applies to the removal of ads has not been decided in a final decision. [2] "The author has the right to prohibit any distortion or other interference with his work that is likely to jeopardize his legitimate intellectual or personal interests in the work." Art 14 UrhG
  - charlesrocket 4y ago
    Cutting the magazine you own is not the same tho

WesolyKubeczek 4y ago

> Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. In answer, I should probably invoke accessibility laws, asserting that ads make my blood pressure rise and induce vomiting. Also, since parodies have been deemed fair use since about forever, what I’m reading is fine parodies, which are exactly the originals except they don’t have ads.

thfuran 4y ago
But that's all obvious nonsense.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Perhaps. But "making sense" is generally not a priority for the law. And taking such a stance might be pretty useful, on the PR/politics side...
  - trothamel 4y ago
    Making sense is usually a priority for the judges that run the court cases that define what the law is/means.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Making sense is a high priority for legal arguments. You may be unfamiliar with the context in which things are meant to make sense though.
Mezzie 4y ago
You don't even need to make up a reason. I'm visually impaired in a way that has substantial cortical visual impairment, issues with movement, and issues with crowding. Ads are genuinely an accessibility problem for me and people like me.
anthk 4y ago
I don't modify the page, I just ban the browser to fetch some domains. Try banning hosts file usage, Axel Springer. Also, good luck with that clause against Links, Lynx and Dillo.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tazjin 4y ago

> So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. That seems absurd. I just reject their request to fetch some _additional_ information, I don't modify the "text of their request" as such. If that breaks their sites (as it usually does), that's their problem - not mine.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
I will entertain their terms so long as they agree to a contract stipulating terms for executing code on my computer.
- evnix 4y ago
  This! it is your machine at the end of the day. we should have an option not to use a company or their services which they are forcing on us. I had a neighbor who was sent an invoice, he had cancelled his internet connection 3 months ago and was later told they need a cancellation request in writing. so he sent an equivalent invoice to them asking for rent for their modem which was consuming place in his house. he did not have to pay in the end.
- mindslight 4y ago
  This sounds clever, but it's actually diametrically opposed to the protocol model. The problem is companies push unilateral contracts of adhesion that you're "free" to take or leave. So if the contract regime ruled computer interactions (as "remote attestation" is poised to do) then you'd find yourself at the pointy end of a new stick. It's the same reason US privacy regulation is doomed to failure unless it frames consent the same way the GDPR did. Not merely as something that is given once (and then vectoralized/sold), but rather something that needs to be given on an ongoing basis and can be withdrawn at any time.
epicide 4y ago
Right. If I request they snail mail me a copy of some document, they are free to reject the request. However, if they send me the document, I am free to tear off pieces or color on it with crayons.

hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago

> Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. Suppose it's true and that they are copyright holders for all these ads (they are not). Now, when the publisher gets a newspaper out, the content is just as they wanted. But when I take that newspaper home and decide to tear out a page or whatever fragment of it, it's none of their business. The filtering is being done locally, EasyList is not publishing an adless version of their websites.

netr0ute 4y ago

> subject to copyright law. This exact thing happened with Nintendo decades ago, and it turned out to be a nothing burger.

garfieldnate 4y ago

Reminds me of a recent discovery on my device. I found out it's not possible for me to take screenshots on Netflix or Prime Video unless I go into Chrome settings and turn off hardware acceleration. It turns out that newer displays have DRM baked into them that prevents you from taking screenshots of your own freaking screen. I feel stupid for never having known that, but more importantly completely violated. This is my machine, and I choose what do on it, and how did I never know about this before? I feel the same way about sites that turn off right-click or text copying.