2 ms·

Liable for lost advertising revenue due to the 'defacement' and 'republishing' of copyrighted content under the DMCA. It is a stretch, but America is a litigiou

by darien 17y ago

Liable for lost advertising revenue due to the 'defacement' and 'republishing' of copyrighted content under the DMCA. It is a stretch, but America is a litigious nation and the courts have a tendency to rule in favor of big business (because they support the economy). And if the courts wont rule the first time around, there are always lobbyists to help change laws.

habitue 17y ago
I think it would be a humongous stretch to say it's defacement. The server client model is the important factor I think here. A server sends data to the client to display in a manner it chooses fit. If a browser chooses not to request certain content, or chooses not to display it to the user, there is no defacement going on. If it is legal for there to be rendering differences at all between browsers, I think adblock fits into that gap as well. As you said however, who knows what crazy justification they will come up with, and what the courts will buy.
- darien 17y ago
  I definitely agree with you. Right now I'm trying to get into their argumentative mindset. I think web properties can argue that their copyright extends to HOW the content is displayed. This point is furthered if online sites can prove that their site is generated dynamically based on specific browsers. If they can argue that they manually create different (authorized) versions for different configurations (1 configuration for each browser, os and monitor type), and that all of those configurations contain ads. The courts may find that any configurations outside the site's authorized versions are unauthorized, an infringement of copyright and illegal. To me it almost makes sense. Thoughts?
  - DEinspanjer 17y ago
    If the web properties could successfully argue that their copyright extends to how the content is displayed, I think it is likely they could get a lot more bang for their buck by suing Microsoft for the mangled content that comes out of the many millions of IE 6 browsers still being used out there. :) That said, I highly doubt either lawsuit has much of a leg to stand on. Content transformation is a long standing and tacitly accepted feature of web protocols. Caching, zooming, and even assistant technologies such as a screen or braille reader would run afoul this argument.
dflock 17y ago
I would imagine that if tivo et. al. - or even fast forward buttons - are legal on DVD & PVR's, then I don't see why ad blocking on the web is any different, legally speaking.
- darien 17y ago
  Not sure what the legal excuse for tivo's existence is, but I have seen dvds which don't allow the option of ff'ing previews when they are played on a standard topbox dvd player.
moe 17y ago
The premise that an adblocker would need advertising to flourish is just hilarious. People don't install adblock when they see an ad for it. They install it when they have been pissed off by intrusive ads once too often. Hence the main promoter of adblock is the content industry itself with intrusive popup ads, auto-playing audio etc.

by darien 17y ago

habitue 17y ago

I think it would be a humongous stretch to say it's defacement. The server client model is the important factor I think here. A server sends data to the client to display in a manner it chooses fit. If a browser chooses not to request certain content, or chooses not to display it to the user, there is no defacement going on. If it is legal for there to be rendering differences at all between browsers, I think adblock fits into that gap as well. As you said however, who knows what crazy justification they will come up with, and what the courts will buy.

darien 17y ago
I definitely agree with you. Right now I'm trying to get into their argumentative mindset. I think web properties can argue that their copyright extends to HOW the content is displayed. This point is furthered if online sites can prove that their site is generated dynamically based on specific browsers. If they can argue that they manually create different (authorized) versions for different configurations (1 configuration for each browser, os and monitor type), and that all of those configurations contain ads. The courts may find that any configurations outside the site's authorized versions are unauthorized, an infringement of copyright and illegal. To me it almost makes sense. Thoughts?
- DEinspanjer 17y ago
  If the web properties could successfully argue that their copyright extends to how the content is displayed, I think it is likely they could get a lot more bang for their buck by suing Microsoft for the mangled content that comes out of the many millions of IE 6 browsers still being used out there. :) That said, I highly doubt either lawsuit has much of a leg to stand on. Content transformation is a long standing and tacitly accepted feature of web protocols. Caching, zooming, and even assistant technologies such as a screen or braille reader would run afoul this argument.

dflock 17y ago

I would imagine that if tivo et. al. - or even fast forward buttons - are legal on DVD & PVR's, then I don't see why ad blocking on the web is any different, legally speaking.

darien 17y ago
Not sure what the legal excuse for tivo's existence is, but I have seen dvds which don't allow the option of ff'ing previews when they are played on a standard topbox dvd player.

moe 17y ago

The premise that an adblocker would need advertising to flourish is just hilarious. People don't install adblock when they see an ad for it. They install it when they have been pissed off by intrusive ads once too often. Hence the main promoter of adblock is the content industry itself with intrusive popup ads, auto-playing audio etc.