[chad-autry]

From what I can tell, the DMCA does apply (sort of)

Admiral seems to be a paywall server basically. If blocking their domain gave access to paywalled content, then the DMCA seems to apply http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-cont...

However, that defense is a bit flimsy to me since the fall back to having the paywall blocked could/should be a "Paywall blocked, please disable your addblocker to gain access to our content" msg.

Anyhow, that is immaterial because so long as they don't actually serve adds, Easylist could/would have removed the line no problem. Admiral should have just said "Our domain doesn't serve adds, we work on paid content access" and they would have been removed without all this hassle.

[kevin_thibedeau]

It's their fault for delivering data they want restricted. I'm under no obligation to make every HTTP request they want me to or execute any untrusted JavaScript. Nor am I obligated to render their HTML as intended. If they want these things then they need every user to enter onto a binding contract agreeing to those terms.

[djsumdog]

ah, but you might be. This gets into a crazy area where we're talking about some entity offering up information via HTTP and you choosing how to represent that data. You could use Lynx, Firefox, Chrome, IE or even just browse everything with Python/BeautifulSoup in a console. Does the provider get to chose how you represent that data?

Well it turns out they kinda do. Sites have terms of service people supposedly agree to, all the time, without reading, because it's fucking impossible.

I posted this argument before and got the following comments which make a good argument:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14095147

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14095410

However the comments get into implementations like Netflix and rendering that data, but it's a bit different because in that case you are paying for access.

Will we be in a world one day where sites can require specific web browsers, by law?

[Karunamon]

Worse. A world where companies just take their stuff off the web and require you use their apps for everything. Much fewer legal questions there.

[codedokode]

That is not a problem because there will be competitors without this requirement. The problem is laws that are not well balanced and are biased towards interests of one party.

[manigandham]

This argument really gets old. Morally you know what you're doing. Most people would be fine blocking the big dozen or so of the most offensive ad networks but this extreme approach (especially when the publisher is trying to offer you choices) just comes off as ridiculous.

[michaelmrose]

Morally maybe we just ought to kill off their entire industry because the world is a worse place with them in it?

[manigandham]

What entire industry? Advertising? And how is the world worse because of it?

Do you realize just how much advertising funds? It's a 12 figure global industry and 99% of the content you consume is funded in part by it - and that's before we get to how advertising drives the economy by efficiently matching businesses to customers. Every company relies on advertising (whether paid, word-of-mouth, etc) to succeed.

It's irrational to see so much hate and it's likely your complaint is really only about intrusive ad formats and data privacy. That is something I agree with and I'm for every change that makes for safer, better, and more private ads, but that is vastly different than calling for the elimination of advertising in any sensible reality.

[RodericDay]

Morally, advertisers know what they're doing, too.

[manigandham]

It's not advertisers as much as a complex supply chain with bad incentives in a 12-figure global industry.

We say the same things with government waste over military and healthcare. And we can fix it in the same ways with better trust, accountability and regulation.

[teraflop]

I think it's worth mentioning that even if an easylist filter entry counts as "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access" -- which I think is debatable for multiple reasons -- the DMCA takedown procedure only covers copyright infringement. It does not apply to anti-circumvention measures.

As Admiral's blog post points out, Github recommends using the same contact procedure for anti-circumvention takedown requests as for normal DMCA takedowns. But as far as I can tell, they're doing so purely on their own initiative; such a takedown request doesn't have the force of law in the same sense that a claim of copyright infringement does.

[chad-autry]

> Github recommends using the same contact procedure for anti-circumvention takedown requests as for normal DMCA takedowns

I made this mistake to, Admiral's blog post does imply it. However, they were making a DMCA take down request, based off the reasoning it was for anti-circumvention.

[15155]

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

It most certainly does apply to anti-circumvention in many cases.

[teraflop]

I don't understand how your comment is a response to mine. Could you please clarify?

The DMCA is a set of laws. The DMCA takedown procedure is a part of those laws, defined in a fairly rigid way: it has specific notification requirements, timeframes, and is clearly defined to only apply to copyright infringement. Just because the DMCA also prohibits circumvention, it doesn't automatically follow that circumvention is the same as copyright infringement. And the Wikipedia section that you linked to doesn't mention the takedown process at all.

[codedokode]

But nothing prevents Admiral from notifying Github about a DMCA violation informally and Github removing the code.

[moogly]

But isn't that referring to DRM?

[anilgulecha]

By that logic, ad servers themselves could cite their own copyright of ads, and thus request removal from easylist!

EFF has gotten in touch with easylist according to [1]. That's good.

[1] https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-f...

[guelo]

The only hope against the DMCA is that eventually the takedowns get so ridiculous that courts are forced to strike it down as the unconstitutional garbage it is.

[yndoendo]

To that same logic any operating system that allows editing the hosts file or running your DNS service and routing a domain name to loop-back or some other server is also liable for producing circumvention tools.

[politician]

Operating a private, air-gapped LAN could be seen as circumventing ads on the Internet.

[botverse]

Don't give them ideas