Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkkollaw | Hacker News Reader

I didn't get what the hell happened.

So, Admiral—an anti-adblocker company—contacted EasyList and told them to remove a domain from their list. This domain was a server they needed for their anti-adblocker platform to work.

EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed, so Admiral contacted GitHub and the domain was removed from the EasyList list after GitHub told EasyList they should comply.

The "attack" is that any company can tell lists to remove their website via using a DMCA violation, so lists become useless.

I have two questions:

1. how would a domain name on a list violate copyright

2. why aren't lists hosted anywhere else but the US so that they can't be controlled by DMCA requests.

View on HN

Frankly parts of this summary sound like the Admiral spin on things.

> So, Admiral—an anti-adblocker company—contacted EasyList and told them to remove a domain from their list.

In reality, a new Github account made a comment on a commit. That account had no identifying details to link them to a company, person, or anything else. For all intents and purposes, it was nobody.

The account is @dmcahelper on Github. It has a marketing blurb in the bio (which mentions no companies or individuals' names) and has starred one repo, Github's dmca repo.

> EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed

A reply said that, essentially, "if you're Github and trying to tell me something, a brand new account isn't one of the channels I'm listening on."

(Anonymous) Admiral didn't reply to that comment.

IMO EasyList had no choice but to thoroughly ignore that comment, as it would be ridiculous to act on it.

Oh, no... Now I'm confused again :-/

IIUC, the DMCA says that if there's some technological mechanism X that's used to enforce copyright, and a tool Y that is (or can be) used to circumvent X, then making or distributing Y is itself illegal (as opposed to the act of using Y to circumvent X, which is already illegal even without the DMCA). The DMCA then provides a notice-based method for 'taking down' online copies of Y.

In this case, X is the Admiral technology. Copyright owners use it to control access to content. However, an adblocker with Admiral's domain on its blocklist is a tool Y that circumvents that.

Thanks, I understand better now.

If Admiral enables paywalls, then I kind of agree with Admiral.

If companies want to put paywalls, circumventing them is kind of like jumping the gate to see a concert for free.

I always hit the back button, but publishers should be free to put up paywalls (no idea why they don't do it server-side, but that's another story).

So, I guess the article or at least the title are a little sensationalistic?

If your paywall can be circumvented by not making a single http request then the problem lies in bad software engineering, not the law. What happens if I'm on a slow connection and that request fails? Do they get to send the FBI after me since I'm suddenly a criminal?

Here's the thing - if blocking the loading of your protection script from a third-party server is all it takes to bypass your paywall, haven't you really, really screwed up?

Surely it should be the other way around - the paywall doesn't let you through unless the code is accessible and gets run?

I'm not going to try and claim people wouldn't be so stupid as to try to implement it this way...

> I'm not going to try and claim people wouldn't be so stupid as to try to implement it this way.

They aren't stupid: they are incredibly intelligent.

It was implemented this way to weaponize the DMCA, plain and simple.

Just move the list on a server in Iceland

Game-set-match

If it's actually to protect anything, it's dumb, as it's defeated by whitelists, filters or even poor connections...

> If Admiral enables paywalls, then I kind of agree with Admiral.

I do and I don't. I think paywalls should be allowed to happen, but I don't think EasyList is circumventing paywalls. The companies that use EasyList might use it to circumvent a paywall, but what they do with a list of domains is up to them.

If I grabbed the EasyList repo, there's no way I could use it to circumvent a paywall. Nothing in that repo carries that functionality. It's not a matter of semantics or mincing words, either.

They shouldn't send the content before they check if the user has paid to view it. Otherwise if they send the content to anyone who requests they can't complain when I choose what does and doesn't run on my computer.

Whew I had no idea wtf until this comment, thank you.

please show me on the doll where easylist caused copyright infringement.

admiral provides some service. some people do not want it. the list is not owned by admiral and easylist does not go into the functionalclam website, nor is it a list of results to copyright material. what exactly does a text file do to violate the dmca? this is setting a dangerous precedent.

Did you understand the comment you replied to?

The DMCA is not just about direct copyright infringement, but also about preventing the circumvention of technological protections for copyrighted content.

No one is saying there was copyright infringement here.

You can think that this is super bogus (I sure do) but make sure you understand the nature of what you're mad about. ;-)

Blocking a domain does not circumvent any copyrighted content distribution

It's like saying that turning off TV block the distribution of GOT hence is a tool to circumvent HBO copyright

The mechanism in place here is that the domain provides code that sites use to will block content if the visitor is using an ad blocker. The argument being made is that by preventing this code from running by blocking the domain, the site thinks you should have access when in reality, they don't want to serve the content up to you.

As for your TV comparison, the better comparison is probably with satellite TVs, where you are just decoding signals being sent to you anyways, and if they don't want you watching those signals, they shouldn't send them to you. It's not the same, but it's far closer than your comparison.

Note, I'm not backing either side with this post. Only explaining the argument so you have a clear understanding of the issue at hand. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, but understanding the rational is important.

again, what does a text file do to violate the dmca? what's next, a 128-bit number?

IANAL, so i guess until it goes to the court and is decided, we won't know.

The complaint alleges that text file is used to configure software in such a way that it the software circumvents their copyrights, thus the text file itself is a tool for circumventing copyright and violates DMCA.

It's just super dumb, really.

Actually, yes.

This number is illegal: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

It was decided in court already actually (maybe you were being sarcastic here?) back in 2001

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

https://cyber.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/NY/appeals/opinion.htm...

What about this?

- Host content A subject to copyright on site X

- Devise platform Y on site Z whose claimed role is to check whether user has rights to access content A

- Send DMCA on any list or apparatus that tries to block site Z on the ground that it would be a circumvention attempt of platform Y to unlawfully access content A

- Piggy-back on platform Y to do some tracking/stat building about ad-blocking

- Manically laugh at your brilliant scheme

Note that content A and site X could literally be anything and anywhere, possibly even as trivial as a haiku such as "our hard work / by these words guarded / please don't steal". It doesn't even matter that no one is ever meant to ever see the copyrighted work. In this case the copyrighted work could very well be the text/image displayed when ad-blocking is detected, making A == Y and Z == X to confuse everyone while they think this is about displaying ads W.

To sum it up: ad blocking enabled -> copyrighted work displayed -> user views content unlawfully -> ad blocker just circumvented a technological restriction intended to prevent this -> DMCA applies.

Another possibility is that platform Y is preventing ads W to be shown to a certain theoretical group G of people, hence if you are blocking Y, control about W cannot be enforced, whether you were part of group G or not (and of course you were not, but then even though you're not infringing on copyright about seeing W, you're still infringing on circumvention of a device intended to control copyright of W).

Totally roundabout, entirely bogus, but hey, not the first time such heavily pictured crap could still hold water in court.

That is smart but the primary reason why that is possible is the copyright laws that are biased towards the interests of copyright holders.

What does ad-blocking have to do with copyright circumvention or copyright enforcement? The only think on that list is the domain name.

I'm certain that including a name in a list does not fall under copyright (ample precedent that backs it up). In the unlikey (and unfathomable) case that it is protected under copyright, I bet it would fall under fair use.

Trademark law isn't relevant to an entry in a machine database.

Admiral's domain serves software that enforces access restrictions to copyrighted content. Including their domain in an ad-blocking list is a way to circumvent the restrictions.

Whether distributing a list of domain names counts as distributing "tools" or whatever the exact language of the act is, I don't know. This other subthread contains a better discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14991624

I doubt failing to contact a server would circumvent DRM. Blocking their servers would only make their DRM scheme fail and prevent access to said copyright material.

Using the DMCA to protect company's defective and flawed DRM scheme does not constitute circumvention. As such, I do not believe that DMCA's anti-circumvention laws are relevant.

They might use a scheme that would allow access by default and block it with a script from that domain. So blocking the domain becomes a circumvention (today I finally learned how to write this word).

Or that domain could be used to collect views stats for copyrighted content and make decisions based on that stats. Blocking this domain is obviously messing with copyright protection scheme which is illegal inder DMCA.

I think the argument would be that, say, the New York Times wrote an article, and that article included ads for their sponsor. This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material.

I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere. You do not have a right to anybody else's IP.

For the sake of argument, there's a difference between someone's IP and the wrapper it comes in. I'd be more than happy to pay for an audiobook through Amazon (or just get Audible), but until a recent hardware upgrade, I literally couldn't listen to them on the device I had access to during the period I had time to listen to them because Amazon decided I had to have their software to do so. So I found another place I could get the actual content in a different wrapper that did let me play it on my old Sansa+Rockbox (Downpour, if anyone's wondering). I'm more than happy to see an ad beside or before the main content, but whatever site I'm on did not make the ad and taking it off the page is no more changing their IP than taking a black marker to a physical newspaper.

I do block ads, though, despite actually wanting to see them to support the site. My problem is in the potential for viruses and tracking, and while that's a separate issue a few other threads are already talking about, there's been disappointingly little actual progress in making sure you can browse safely without resorting to nuking everything. I've been following the development on Brave because their proposed methods seem like one of the few ways to actually make it work.

> I'm a hardline free speech dude, but I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like."

How?

How can that possibly be hard to justify for anyone that even believes vaguely in the notion of freedom, much less someone "hardline"?

Do you think I break the law (or ethics) if I take the ads insert out of a newspaper I buy without reading them? How about if I hire a secretary to do so?

> This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material.

At the request of the first party (you) after receipt by the first party. They're not packaging it up and reselling it, they're automating your curation of a work you legally own a copy of for the purposes of your own consumption.

> You do not have a right to anybody else's IP.

Then the NYT should stop giving it away free.

I get in a lot of arguments with dudes who believe they have a right to stuff other people made without payment or consequence. The last one I remember is a bunch of DJs who didn't want to get permission to use samples.

I find the arguments pretty spurious and it's best not to engage.

It's their website. If you don't like their website, we got a whole other internet to enjoy.

This has nothing to do with believing that we have right to other people's work without payment. The fundamental issue is that these publishers are allowing public access to their work than expecting to have some control over how it is consumed. Hanging your painting in a public park and then demand that people not wear sunglasses when looking at it, or demanding that onlookers look at it sideways would be absurd. Don't hang your paintings in public parks. Hang it in a private gallery, and make no-sunglasses a term for admission.

Publishers would be better served if they restricted their articles, by demanding payment upfront before serving the article, rather than unreasonably and unrealistically demanding that people consume their content in a certain way. Don't blame your users for your failed business model.

As a side note, Copyright is not the place where this issue should be tackled as no copyright is being infringed (Content is not being redistributed).

Two points:

Free sampling for the purposes of cultural remixing is explicitly built into (US) copyright (across media) as a mitigation to some of the harmful effects of artificial monopolies on culture. It's a compromise between those who think artificial monopolies are the only way to encourage the creation of culture and those who view such contrived monopolies as a net negative. There's a fundamental difference between copying and stealing. You seem to be intentionally conflating them by using phrases like "stuff other people made". It's not really "stuff" that they're "taking" and the copy is made by the copier, not the original composer. Nothing has been taken besides the right to artificially restrict the behavior of other people for the purpose of rent extraction.

Secondly, they give me a copy free when I request it. It just has ads included. But there's no reason I'm obligated to read the ads. It's exactly the case where they give me a free paper with an ad insert and I have the secretary throw away the ad insert before I read it.

Do you think I'm a monster because I throw out the ads in my weekly periodocal unread?

(For the record, I'm taking about ad blockers, not bypassing paywalls -- I generally just don't go to those sites. Your arguments hold more weight when discussing bypassing paywalls.)

It is their website but after I download the content to my hard drive it becomes my files and I can do whatever I want with them privately (as long as I do not redistribute it, claim authorship etc). That is how copyright should work, but of course the actual laws might be biased to the interests of some party. There is nothing new if you learn the history of human society, some groups of people always wanted to have more rights than others.

>This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material.

It's not a third party tool. It's a tool used by the first party (user) to modify information that was sent to him without effecting the publisher. I don't see how the publisher has any authority over what the user chooses to do with the information he obtained.

> I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere.

That's an interesting take on IP rights. By generalizing your argument, would you argue against newspaper snippets because a reader would only collect the article without adjacent ads? (with scissors made by a third-party, no less.)

> You do not have a right to anybody else's IP.

Fair use, Noncopyrightable items, old expired IP, and the public domain are all examples of rights I have to others IP. Rights have been - and I hope will continue to be - balanced between the concerns of IP "owners" and the rest of society to best serve everyone's interests. Tipping the scale in one side's favor like what you advocate here will disrupt that balance.

> We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like.

That is totally ok. For example, if I record a video from TV and remove the ads is that a violation? I think it is not as long as I use this video for myself and do not distribute it.

Copyright laws should not regulate what I do in my house or on my computer. I should be able to modify any copyrighted work as I wish as long I am not redistributing it (and yes, I should be able to inspect and patch copyright protection schemes too).

For example, the web page with copyrighted content can load a script from admiral's domain that would check whether a user is allowed to view the page or not. Adblocker is blocking that domain and therefore circumventing copyright protection scheme which is illegal under DMCA.

The people who invented this are really smart I must admit.

Oh no, now I'm confused again... :-/

Ahhhhh. PERFECT. It looks like the counterargument here is that easylist itself isn't used to circumvent admiral, it's only a list. Other things, like ublock, are the ones that use the list, and are actually blocking admiral.

> EasyList told Admiral that they would only do it if GitHub agreed

I don't understand. Why would GitHub have to "agree" that EasyList removes a domain from their own list (for whatever reason)?

The idea of "removing" a name seems technically unreasonable too. Lists may legitimately be pattern-based (like "ads.*.net" for instance, where ads.targetdomain.net technically matches too).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com