12 ms·

Why would they think this was a good idea after losing the chrome anti-trust trial? I don't know the intended purpose is for this, but I can see several ways th

by thayne 1y ago

Why would they think this was a good idea after losing the chrome anti-trust trial? I don't know the intended purpose is for this, but I can see several ways this could be used anti-competitive way, although now it has been reverse engineered, an extension could spoof it. On the other hand, I wonder if they intend to claim the header is a form of DRM and such spoofing is a DMCA violation...

krackers 1y ago
>an extension could spoof it not if they make it dynamic somehow (e.g. include current day in hash). Then with MV3 changes that prevent dynamic header manipulation there is no way for an extension to spoof it.
- thayne 1y ago
  > Then with MV3 changes that prevent dynamic header manipulation That doesn't apply to Firefox
  - krackers 1y ago
    Fair, I was considering chrome headless since firefox users are already served google captchas more often.
Retr0id 1y ago
x-browser-copyright seems like an attempt at something similar to the Gameboy's nintendo-logo DRM (wherein cartridges are required to have the nintendo logo bitmap before they can boot, so any unlicensed carts would be trademark infringement)
- userbinator 1y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Enterprises_Ltd._v._Accolade%2C_Inc%2E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Enterprises_Ltd._v._Accola... is the legal precedent that says trying to do that won't work, but then again maybe Google thinks it's invincible and can do whatever it wants after it ironically defeated Oracle in a case about interoperability and copyright.
  - Retr0id 1y ago
    Even if they can't defend it legally, it costs them ~nothing to add the header and it could still act as a deterrent.
    - meibo 1y ago
      Apple famously does this with this word soup in their SMC chips, and proceeded to bankrupt a company that sold Hackintoshes and shipped it in their EFI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation Our hard work by these words guarded please don't steal (c) Apple Computer Inc Though one could argue that they would have probably bankrupted them anyway even if they hadn't done that.
  - thayne 1y ago
    That was before the DMCA was passed. It's possible DMCA section 1201 could apply here.
jsnell 1y ago
> after losing the chrome anti-trust trial? There hasn't been such a trial.

by thayne 1y ago

krackers 1y ago

>an extension could spoof it not if they make it dynamic somehow (e.g. include current day in hash). Then with MV3 changes that prevent dynamic header manipulation there is no way for an extension to spoof it.

thayne 1y ago
> Then with MV3 changes that prevent dynamic header manipulation That doesn't apply to Firefox
- krackers 1y ago
  Fair, I was considering chrome headless since firefox users are already served google captchas more often.

Retr0id 1y ago

x-browser-copyright seems like an attempt at something similar to the Gameboy's nintendo-logo DRM (wherein cartridges are required to have the nintendo logo bitmap before they can boot, so any unlicensed carts would be trademark infringement)

userbinator 1y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Enterprises_Ltd._v._Accolade%2C_Inc%2E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Enterprises_Ltd._v._Accola... is the legal precedent that says trying to do that won't work, but then again maybe Google thinks it's invincible and can do whatever it wants after it ironically defeated Oracle in a case about interoperability and copyright.
- Retr0id 1y ago
  Even if they can't defend it legally, it costs them ~nothing to add the header and it could still act as a deterrent.
  - meibo 1y ago
    Apple famously does this with this word soup in their SMC chips, and proceeded to bankrupt a company that sold Hackintoshes and shipped it in their EFI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation Our hard work by these words guarded please don't steal (c) Apple Computer Inc Though one could argue that they would have probably bankrupted them anyway even if they hadn't done that.
- thayne 1y ago
  That was before the DMCA was passed. It's possible DMCA section 1201 could apply here.

jsnell 1y ago

> after losing the chrome anti-trust trial? There hasn't been such a trial.