[bitshiffed]

But the content has already been delivered by the time this "access control" replaces the original page content with itself. There is no middle step/layer actually guarding the content on Admiral's system. Disabling JavaScript would have the same effect. There is no guarantee that clients must process all network requests or execute all script actions specified by a webpage. If you need access control for a website, your job is to implement it on the server, in a way that is not dependent on client actions, like a login system.

[msimpson]

Others within this thread are claiming, without evidence, that this is an incorrect application of the DMCA. I'm simply quoting the portion of the law which is in accordance with Admiral's claim. I care nothing about the mechanism they've created or the philosophical implications or discrepancies of protecting content after it was already made available, etc. I'm simply restating their argument here so others may view it in regard to the letter of the law, and stating that on its face it seems to be a valid claim.

[bitshiffed]

Yes. I wasn't disagreeing with you, but with Admiral's argument. Your distinction is helpful for those thinking that the domain name itself is somehow copyrighted, and the target of this DMCA request.