
Ad blocking is under attack - tiagobraw
https://blog.adguard.com/en/ad-blocking-is-under-attack/
======
anilgulecha
It was admiral that did this: [https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-
adblock-copyright-...](https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-
copyright-access-control-admiral-10-things-to-know/)

They even clearly state they used the only tool available to them, DCMA. From
all the current summaries on this, DMCA does not apply to a line entry in
easylist. A domain can be trademarked.

This should be added back in. And if github cannot standup to DMCA abuse, then
well, easylist and all other developers should be giving a clear hard though
to their continued use of the github platform.

Edit: it looks like EFF has gotten in touch with easylist. Good.
[https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-
url-f...](https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-used-to-remove-ad-server-url-from-
easylist-ad-blocklist-170811/)

~~~
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...](http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/circumventing-copyright-controls)

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.

~~~
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.

~~~
15155
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Anti-
circumvention_exemptions)

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.

------
nkkollaw
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.

~~~
danarmak
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.

~~~
nkkollaw
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?

~~~
Nursie
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...

~~~
15155
> 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.

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

------
TheKarateKid
I hate to say it, but the ad-blocking community is handling this problem the
same way governments often handle things: Reactionary instead of pro-active.

The real source of the problem with ads, is that almost every ad network
allows ads to be self posted with little to no filter. This opens us all up to
the abuse from ads we've been experiencing for over a decade now.

Could you imagine what would happen if you were allowed to self-post an ad on
television without the network manually approving each one?

It's time to hold ad networks responsible for their own content. If a virus
spreads because of their ads, THEY should be sued, just like MTV and others
were when they violated FCC decency rules during the Super Bowl.

~~~
elihu
I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short
little script, rather than playing an audio clip that was provided to them.
There are various ways this can and has been applied to Internet ads, like
making them text-only.

On the other side of things, I would love to see a search engine that pushes
sites down in its rankings proportionally to the obnoxiousness of their ads.

~~~
rsync
"I like NPR's approach to broadcast ads: their own commentators read a short
little script"

This is not always true - for instance, the "brought to you by" slots at the
beginning of the PBS Newshour are advertiser-supplied audio clips.

~~~
whyenot
but NPR and PBS are not the same thing.

------
bogomipz
From a recent WSJ article about anti-ad blocking companies:

“We really think the free internet is at risk because of ad-blocking, so these
types of solutions are needed to turn the tide”, said Dan Rua, CEO of ad-
blocking “revenue recovery” company Admiral, which recently raised $2.5
million to help build its platform."[1]

It's amazing how selective the CEO's concern for the "free internet" is.
Threatening community github repos with DCMA takedowns is OK though?

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-the-anti-ad-
blocker...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-rise-of-the-anti-ad-
blockers-1465805039)

~~~
wu-ikkyu
From Dan Rua's LinkedIn:

>The power of the internet to inform, entertain and liberate mankind is at a
crossroads. The future of ad-supported content is in peril, and with it, free
access for citizens to critical news, education, discourse and resources the
world over. The shorthand name for this looming catastrophe is "adblocking"

It's like a pimp claiming the human race is going to stop reproducing and die
out because people don't want to pay for their prostitutes

~~~
skummetmaelk
Ads are a plague that drive content creators toward ever increasing shock
value just so that they can get clicks. Quality be damned, views are all that
matter.

I would say this is more damaging.

------
cft
It's amazing that they are so uneducated about DMCA. This is called defective
DMCA notice, and it should be ignored. The sender of the notice can now file a
suit, since the publisher of the list is no longer under safe harbor. But they
won't, since they know it is defective. And if they did, it would be thrown
out with a summary judgment.

~~~
otterley
What, specifically, was defective about the notice?

~~~
cft
The notice does not list the copyrighted works that are being infringed (I.e.
made publicly available). This is the necessary element of a valid DMCA
notice.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Wasn't the takedown request for a circumvention technology versus any specific
works?

~~~
cft
In this interpretation, the list of the specific copyrighted protected works
that they provided a circumventing technology to access, is absent from this
notice. I believe no legal theory works here, and I can refer them to a
capable law firm if they are interested.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _What copyrighted protected works did they provide circumventing technology
> to access?_

Anything behind a paywall. I'm not defending what they did. But I sort of
understand how it could be permissible under the DMCA. (A law regarding which
the EFF and I share many opinions.)

------
richardknop
There has been a growing trend of websites that will ask me to either:

a) whitelist their site in my adblocker b) or subscribe to their monthly
subscription and keep reading their site with adblocker

~~~
aphextron
Which results every single time in choosing option C: the browser back button.

~~~
krisdol
Usually two or three times because fuck sites who hijack browser history
because I scroll a little too far

~~~
njharman
That's what open in new tab is for.

Close tab is way better than back. Easier, more consistent and faster.

~~~
digital_trench
Use the mouse wheel/middle button. Will open a new tab when you click on a
link and will close a tab when you click on the tab. This changed my life.

~~~
TheRealPomax
too fickle: half the time I endup also scrolling. ctrl-click is far more
predictable. Same result, less "trying to press a thing designed to roll".

~~~
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6
On most mouses that's not an issue (assuming no motoric problems). Ctrl-click,
on the other hand, requires the use of both hands in most cases.

~~~
mod
I've never had a mouse where it wasn't a problem. I don't buy uber-quality
mouses, so I'm down in the trenches with the vast majority of mouse users with
moderate-to-low quality hardware.

I'm also often using a laptop, on linux, and I do the middle-click-simulation
(both buttons at once) with two hands, which is really annoying. I suppose I
could fix it.

Also I always have my left hand on the keyboard, so for me it's not a problem
to ctrl-click.

Ctrl+click doesn't work on a tab, though--have to hit the X.

~~~
dingo_bat
My laptop has a middle click button ;)

------
politician
Admiral's product is so poorly designed that it requires cooperation from the
browser to work? That violates rule #1 of client/server programming: never
trust the client. Instead, they have to abuse the DMCA to cover for their
uninformed engineering choices.

This is despicable.

"Here hold this copyrighted content in memory for me, but don't make any other
copies of it because, uh, you don't have the license to make copies of it.
Except for, uh, the one that we sent you? To hold in memory? Look, computers
are magic.

Nevermind. DMCA!"

~~~
kazagistar
No, they knew exactly what they were doing.

------
JumpCrisscross
Note that the offender's privacy policy [1] appears to let users ( _e.g._ you
or me) contact support@getadmiral.com "to know whether their Personal Data has
been stored and [to] consult the Data Controller to learn about their contents
and origin, to verify their accuracy or to ask for them to be supplemented,
cancelled, updated or corrected, or for their transformation into anonymous
format or to block any data held in violation of the law, as well as to oppose
their treatment for any and all legitimate reasons."

[1] [https://www.iubenda.com/privacy-policy/347981/full-
legal](https://www.iubenda.com/privacy-policy/347981/full-legal)

------
mnarayan01
Via
[https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0...](https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0fab679a1a8c5a791321622b3#commitcomment-23599344)
by one of the Easylist maintainers:

> If it is a Circumvention/Adblock-Warning adhost, it should be removed from
> Easylist even without the need for a DMCA request.

Anyone know why he's saying this?

Edit: I guess he's referring to the following via
[https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adblock-guide-for-
site-a...](https://easylist.to/2013/05/10/anti-adblock-guide-for-site-
admins.html):

> Anti-Adblock should only be challenged if the system limits website
> functionality or causes significant disruption to browsing

~~~
augustus0
I didn't realize that anti-adblock lists were generally maintained separately,
and this comment tipped me off to it.

If you're using something like uBlock, it might be worth going into Settings
-> 3rd-party filters. There's a few lists in there which are not enabled by
default that are curated to work around anti-adblocking technologies. For
example, "Adblock Warning Removal List".

~~~
lightbyte
If you're going into uBlock's settings, don't forget to add the domain this
whole this is referring to (functionalclam.com) to your custom block filters.

~~~
spydum
Could this comment alone be considered infringement and be subject itself to a
DMCA takedown? You are instructing someone how to potentially bypass security
measures for copyrighted works? /s

------
colept
I have a very unpopular opinion that pulls me in two directions.

Advertisements have exceeded the point of being a nuisance for many years. But
adblocking is a fight that solves symptoms and will affect more than just
advertising in a negative way.

The best parallel I can draw is to the Napster era when pirating music cut off
the head of the chicken in the industry. Hollywood and like were refusing to
adjust to digital downloads and streaming. Part of this was due to the fact
that it would drive down profits. But people started pirating the content and
getting it for free so they lost money anyways. It's not impossible, but it
has become more difficult for artists to break into the industry (along with
competition) because of the margin of profitability.

In that same vein - publishers and advertisers have resisted the market and
have bled their visitors for every penny. Finally the users stood up and said
enough is enough - and now we have adblocking. The problem I have with
adblocking is that it doesn't resolve the problem, just the symptoms.
Adblocking pushes out smalltime publishers whose only revenue are these
obtrusive ads. The "big guys" can stay alive as the reduction will be drops in
the water for them. The way I see adblocking is that it will only drive the
publishing industry further towards monopolies who will push the little guys
out. And once you are getting all your content from 1-3 sources and the little
guys are gone - there's nothing to stop them from becoming the same monoliths
that exist as Internet Service Providers. They control the means and have no
urge to change.

I stand on the fence, wishing there was a better solution to this problem but
some times the only way to bring change is to burn it down first and start
from scratch.

~~~
jetpks
> The best parallel I can draw is to the Napster era when pirating music cut
> off the head of the chicken in the industry.

I don't think this comparison holds up. Napster was a peer to peer network
where publishers of the works being downloaded had no control over who was
able to download what. By contrast, web publishers have extraordinarily fine
grained control over distribution of their works.

For example, when I connect to nytimes.com to read some news, I politely ask
the nytimes.com servers for access by saying:

    
    
      GET /some/article HTTP/1.1
    

The NYTimes, or literally ANY publisher on the web, have the option to say no
right there for _any_ reason. They are under zero obligation to give me access
to content I'm requesting.

If publishers are upset about people reading their content without displaying
ads, maybe they should stop giving it all away for free.

~~~
colept
> If publishers are upset about people reading their content without
> displaying ads, maybe they should stop giving it all away for free.

Hence, monopolies. Small timers won't be able to afford the lack of revenue.

------
delegate
As I understand they're using copyright laws not to prevent me from _copying_
content, but to preventing me from _not consuming_ content.

In other words, the copyright law is used to _force_ content consumption.

~~~
Markoff
you better not watch Black mirror 15 million merits

------
aphextron
>"This domain accepts GET and POST requests over standard HTTP ports (TCP 80
and TCP 443) via strictly web based traffic originating from browsers"

lol

~~~
Spivak
Don't joke. You really don't want to see these kinds of ravenous lawyers try
to define website access not from an 'approved' browser as unauthorized access
under the CFAA.

~~~
ransom1538
You could add to your TOS which browsers are approved. Using an unapproved
browser would violate the current CFAA - under the current interpretation.
Federal felony 1-5 years.

~~~
relevant_thing
False. See 828 F.3d 1068 at 1077 (9th Cir. 2016):

>From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization
under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--
without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA.

They say this because (Id. at 1076):

>"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but
website owners retain the right to change the terms at any time and without
notice." [676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012)] at 862. As a result, imposing criminal
liability for violations of the terms of use of a website could criminalize
many daily activities. Accordingly, "the phrase 'exceeds authorized access' in
the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions. If Congress wants
to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more
clearly." Id. at 863.

~~~
ransom1538
Interesting. TOS can't be a 'catch all'. There needs to be another criminal
intent. But, wouldn't using the plugin to avoid paying for the service _be_
the other crime? Seems like two crimes? Which would satisfy?

[http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/1265-...](http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/1265-1272_Online.pdf)

------
spilk
Am I the only one who thinks its laughable that adding their domain to a
blocklist "circumvents" their protection technology? If I was a content
provider I don't think I'd want to rely on something so flimsy.

~~~
jethro_tell
It's turtles all the way down man, at some point, everyone has to use DNS.

------
cwkoss
Everyone should contact their investors.

"Your portfolio company @getadmiral is committing fraud by filing false DMCA
requests. Can you fix this?"

Birchmere Ventures

Florida Gulfshore Capital

Florida Institute for the Commercialization of Public Research

Mosley Ventures

New World Angels

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/admiral-2#/entity](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/admiral-2#/entity)

If they are made aware a portfolio company is committing fraud, hopefully they
have enough ethics to help sort out the situation. Not a lawyer, but if the
investors are aware of the fraud and do nothing, they may have some liability
themselves.

~~~
dangrossman
I'm not convinced people that do this wouldn't be making an arse out of
themselves. No lawyers have appeared in here to say that anything fraudulent
has happened. The DMCA does prohibit dissemination of any software whose
purpose is to circumvent technological measures that control access to
copyrighted works. If the domain we're talking about is key to such technical
measures, then distributing software that blocks it may in fact be illegal
under the DMCA, and sending a DMCA notice to take it down ordinary and
allowed. "New World Angels" have no power to overturn the law of the land,
especially one which is implementation of a broad international treaty.

~~~
pishpash
EasyList is not software. It's just a fracking list. Is it a DCMA violation to
state factually, as I am doing now, that functionalclam.com is a so-called
"access control" domain?

------
hokkos
Github should have protected easylist from this bullshit DMCA request, here it
is on github :
[https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/ff44d37f62d772bfec5fd432...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/ff44d37f62d772bfec5fd4327e4a2009b9ad47aa/2017/2017-08-02-LevenLabs.md)

Github is the culprit here.

~~~
dangrossman
Why should Github take on unlimited liability for someone else's code? If a
judge agrees that blocking this anti-circumvention technology is illegal
(something the DMCA does prohibit), and Github had refused to take it down
(which means they don't get safe harbor), then Github is the first-party that
is liable for distributing that illegal technology, probably many millions of
times. When you start taking statutory fines and multiply them by millions,
you end up with numbers that would put Github out of business overnight. Is
that beneficial to anyone?

~~~
notyourday
Because it does not accept unlimited liability by following DMCA takedown
procedure. Following it places Github into the DMCA safe-harbor. Not following
it opens Github to liability.

This is what should have happened:

    
    
      1. Github is served with a DMCA Takedown notice
      2. Github validates that the notice is valid
      3. Github takes down the $FILE or $REPO
      4. Owner of the Repo contacts Github
      5. Github notifies the owner of the repo that it was a DMCA takedown
      6. Owner of the repo provides Github with the Counter-notice.
      7. Github restores access to the taken down $FILE or $REPO
    

At this point the party issuing takedown _must_ sue the owner of the repo. It
cannot go after Github. It also cannot take down the content again using DMCA
to github.

------
dhimes
Is it illegal to claim something under DMCA when it does not in fact represent
a DMCA claim?

~~~
CWuestefeld
Yes, but:

A. Nobody - NOBODY - is ever punished for violating.

B. The folks in question here think they have a colorable argument for why it
really is DMCA. As linked from the OP, this is here [1]. (FWIW, I think it's
silly)

[1] [http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-
violating...](http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/is-adblock-plus-violating-
the-dmca/)

~~~
falcolas
Nobody is punished because the DMCA claim/counterclaim process gives them a
chance to back out of the claim before it goes to court. And the word is that
if it does go to court, proving that they willfully and intentionally
misrepresented their ownership of the material under question is a very high
bar; it would probably require some internal memo with content approximating
"We know we don't own X but let's issue a DMCA against Y for hosting X
anyways."

------
superflyguy
Store a hash of the URLs instead of the URLs themselves.

~~~
Lagged2Death
I don't see how this would work when the URL lists are full of regexps etc.

If you could make it work, you'd would wind up with some sort of source file
of domains, parsed at build time to generate list of hashes that actually ship
with your plugin. That source file would belong in a repo, and would still be
DMCA-able in this way.

Also, this would make ad-blockers even more CPU intensive than they are.

We shouldn't have to pursue a technical solution. It's my computer, it's my
internet connection. If I'm not allowed to control my own property, then the
concept of property becomes meaningless.

~~~
JD557
>I don't see how this would work when the URL lists are full of regexps etc.

I guess you could distribute a compiled finite automaton instead of a list of
hashed values. It would make searching GitHub for "infringing lists" much
harder (even harder than hashes).

Nevertheless, I agree with "We shouldn't have to pursue a technical solution".
There's no point in trying to act like a Mr. smarty-pants in legal situations,
as most technical solutions might not work out as expected in court.

------
EFruit
uBlock and uMatrix have a "page blocked" function when the entire page matches
a filter, could something similar be implemented for these situations?

Say, if a page requests content from these blocked domains, the ad blocker
display an SSL warning-esque page that says something along the lines of "This
page contains ad content protected by the DMCA. These ads may contain
malicious material, and can not be safely viewed. Please alert the site owner
to resolve this issue." If you want to make it really effective, you may even
be able to pull contact email addresses from WHOIS data and make the contact
line a mailto: URL.

~~~
JackC
This is pretty much what I want. If loading sketchy third-party tracking
images is a condition of reading your content, fine, but tell me in advance so
I can pass.

------
logfromblammo
In for a penny; in for a pound.

If I can't put your domain name in my adblock blacklist because it violates
your copyrights or trademarks, then my DNS provider shouldn't be able to put
your domain in their resolver, either.

------
driverdan
Peter Lowe’s Ad and tracking server list still includes functionalclam. I
recommend using it:
[https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/](https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/)

uBlock Origin includes it.

------
Overtonwindow
This is very interesting, I had not considered that besides blocking ads, we
should be blocking the anti-adblocking servers that seek to prevent us from
blocking ads. We should also block those anti-ad servers. This is war.

------
userbinator
One should not need to think too much to realise that if this is allowed to
continue, it will set a dangerous precedent of effectively _removing the
freedom to close one 's eyes_ \--- hitherto, it seemed to be accepted even
among the strongest DRM supporters that consumers had the right to _not_
consume content they didn't want. They've tried to force (or perhaps
"encourage" is the wording they prefer) consumers to consume with things like
unskippable video adverts and warnings in DVDs, but AFAIK it's absolutely not
illegal to look away (perhaps even at a different TV) or go do something else
while that content is playing; now, by effectively trying to say that blocking
or denying oneself from consuming --- or letting one's browser or other
technology through which one consumes --- certain content, is illegal, they
are trying to make it legally enforceable to consume content.

I wish all those who are involved or support such insanity would be themselves
strapped tightly in front of a computer or TV, with eyelids glued open, and
subjected to this force-feeding of content they don't want to see.

Ultimately, this loss of control of one's eyes, ears, and mind is something I
strongly abhor, strong enough to express in a manner I normally don't partake
in: _fuck this shit!_

------
zb3
If in the future I am forced to view ads, I won't click on them and I won't
buy any products advertised via forced ads.

~~~
digital_trench
But the ad will leave residue on your brain. So you are still being advertised
to.

~~~
ionised
Then perhaps like me, that ad will mean he actively avoids that product and
brand out of ad-fatigue and simple spite rather than the intended effect,
which is to attract people to them.

------
mtgx
This is what you get when companies have all the incentive to file DMCA
takedown requests and there's _no punishment_ for filing a bogus one. And
modern technology is making this problem increasingly worse, with all the
automated takedown tools.

------
pbhjpbhj
The only way I see DMCA applying here is contributory infringement in enabling
modification of the page.

With that in mind I think the question to be answered is does a user/viewer
have the right to modify a page in their own web browser or must they view the
page as intended by the creators?

You can get in to technicalities then like are Links creators committing
contributory infringement, but I'm not sure that's helpful.

Should a user be able to purposefully block parts of a page?

~~~
javindo
> Should a user be able to purposefully block parts of a page?

I have yet to see a compelling/coherent argument for why they shouldn't.

As a partially sighted user myself, I find it infuriating when web developers
try to override browser behaviour/modifications (e.g. blocking pinch to zoom).
If we go down a path where users can't modify pages, we are taking a huge step
backwards.

------
op00to
> That domain is part of the DMCA copyright access control platform Admiral
> provides publishers so they can engage visitors in a transparent way on the
> value exchange for their copyrighted content, instead of resorting to
> surprise ad reinsertion the way some of our competitors advocate but
> visitors and advertisers dislike.

Does anyone actually understand what this garbage paragraph is actually
saying? It stinks of corporate-esque bullshit to me.

~~~
freeone3000
They show a pop-up attempting to convince people to disable adblockers rather
than running ads that get around adblockers.

------
K0nserv
Surely if you are truly conserned about the copyright of your work you
wouldn't freely send the content to the user's device before issuing some sort
of challenge e.g login at which point circumventing that becomes a crime.
Websites shouldn't be allowed to dictate how the user agent decides to execute
the content received. This seems like a case of wanting to have the cake and
eat it too.

------
alexmat
You can add this list to get around admiral domains:
[https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/admiral-
domains.txt](https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/admiral-domains.txt)

------
mnm1
Encrypt the list and then send a DMCA notice to any company who decrypts it
without permission (non ad blocker) and tries to use this scheme again. That
would seemingly be a valid DMCA claim, but IANAL.

------
tyingq
Just encode the list of urls with htmlentities, base64, rot13, whatever. Then
the DMCA can't be used to attack it.

Edit: Disagree? Please comment. It's attackable via the DMCA because the
word/brand is in the file in it's copyrighted form. If you encode it such that
it isn't in that form, it's protected from that approach.

~~~
sillysaurus3
Encrypted IP is still IP.

~~~
tyingq
Encoded, not encrypted. I can't be violating a copyright with text that can't
possibly create brand confusion, etc.

The DMCA complaint is patently invalid in this case. A counter notice would
almost certainly eventually succeed, it's just a lot of work and potential
spend in legal. Encoding it is just removing the ability to use it
inappropriately in the first place.

~~~
freeone3000
"brand confusion"? You seem to be conflating copyright law with trademark law.
If I had a copy of "Steamboat Willie", it wouldn't matter if it was H.264
encoded or md5summed or stored in an AES locker, it's still a copyright
violation because I don't have a license for the content.

~~~
tyingq
I'm not, the filer of the DMCA is. How else could just a uri being on a page
cause a DMCA takedown of a page? That's what happened...they filed a DMCA
because the text "[http://whatever"](http://whatever") was on a github page.
Which sounds a lot like meaning trademark, but saying copyright.

That's why I don't consider this underhanded. As you mention, it's not
copyrighted in the first place. Obscuring it is just closing the loophole
that's being exploited.

I'm not talking about obscuring long passages of copyrighted text. Just
obscuring one plaintext url that's on a page with others.

~~~
sillysaurus3
The project maintainer _wanted_ to take it down. He has gone on record saying
that the url shouldn't have been there in the first place, regardless of the
DMCA.

If you put an encrypted blob on each line instead of a plaintext url, the DMCA
notice will contain "My copyrighted work appears at <link to github line
number> which decrypts to <my url> when using <decryption method>." It's
exactly the same as the original claim. If you feel they're not technically
sophisticated enough to file a claim like this, I think we'll have to agree to
disagree.

~~~
tyingq
In practice that "when using" stuff doesn't work. The DMCA request is denied
by most providers if they can't see "the text in question".

This is from experience. Scrapers that change one or two words in a long
passage of text getting away with it because it doesn't match. Or very lightly
cropping 1000's of original photos. I will cede that it depends on the
provider. Google and many others do some rudimentary checking for sanity
before allowing a DMCA request. They would never have passed this one, where
just a short piece of text was claimed as infringing.

------
eli
This seems a bit hyperbolic. If you believe there's a battle between ad
servers and ad blockers, it's obvious the ad blockers are winning by a lot.

IANAL but this seems like a questionable use of DMCA Takedown notice which, in
any event, isn't actually binding. EasyList could probably file a
counternotification and risk a lawsuit.

------
wnevets
a DCMA request for listing a inherently public domain name? Am I the only one
confused?

~~~
rhizome
No. It's appears to be a weird situation, described poorly by all sides, each
of whom appear to be highly concerned with promoting themselves within their
explanations.

------
jwilk
Previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228)

------
jnagro
It is super ironic that the co-founder @jameshartig was previously at
GrooveShark aka "The legality of Grooveshark's business model, which permitted
users to upload copyrighted music, remains undetermined."

------
reiichiroh
Now is a good time for me to plug Reek's Anti Anti-Adblock:
[http://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/](http://reek.github.io/anti-
adblock-killer/)

------
rnhmjoj
Can't we host EasyList somewhere safer?

~~~
koolba
International safe zone or something distributed like IPFS?

~~~
brador
Blockchain would be great for this.

~~~
jethro_tell
what would block chain give that git wouldn't? Wouldn't anyone beable to
remove a domain or add a domain.

~~~
stale2002
No, you just have a hash of the "official" version of the list. And when the
list needs to be updated, the person with the private key publishes a new list
again.

The advantage of using the bitcoin blockchain, for example, is that it can't
be censored. DMCA trolls now have to go after every single bitcoin company in
the world, to stop them from "hosting" the copyrighted work.

~~~
jethro_tell
Why would they not go after the guy with the private key? Any way he can
escape that so could git.

------
edraferi
What's the DMCA rational here? Admiral wants to run code in my browser to
offer their service, and thus instructing my browser not to run their code is
circumventing them in a way that violates DMCA?

Screw that.

------
firefoxd
I use privacy badger, and unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't use a list to block
content, it just blocks any 3rd party request that send cookie information.

Why are we relying on a list?

~~~
ballenf
That approach might not be enough:

[https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95](https://github.com/jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector/issues/95)

Edit: the linked issue is regard "instart" which seems to exploit a Chromium
flaw that allows it to disguise third-party cookies as first-party, preventing
filtering based on that categorization alone.

It seems it's getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were
originally intended.

~~~
warrenm
>getting harder to rely on browsers working how they were originally intended

That's because people want to Do Cool Stuff™ in their browsers - ie, they
don't want to merely "browse"

------
bborud
I used to read about 25 or so online news publications each week. A bit more
on a monthly basis. I had paid subscriptions to a handful of publications
(8-9?), spending more money on these subscriptions than I had ever done for
paper newspapers and magazines in the past.

Over the past 3-4 years I have ditched most newspapers and I have dropped most
subscriptions. For three main reasons:

\- Both advertising content and the newspapers advertising themselves has
gotten really annoying. No, I don't appreciate you throwing modal windows at
me. No I'm not going to subscribe to your newsletter. No I don't appreciate
having to click away a second or third modal window.

\- Advertising masquerading as content. Sure, it is marked as "sponsored
content", but every effort is made to hide that fact. This is dishonest.

\- I don't gain anything from reading most of these publications. They don't
make me smarter and I don't remember what I read one week later. The bulk of
news articles are written by uninformed people incapable of useful analysis.
Important news is widely disseminated anyway so I won't miss anything.

When the ads are more important than the content, I won't burden them with my
page views. It isn't for me.

In the process I found that I had been spending too much time reading news.
Limiting my news intake to just a few news sources (3-4) whose biases I
understand, and at least which I can try to adjust for, is enough. The number
of books I've consumed per year has had a sharp uptick since I stopped reading
as many news websites.

------
ThinkBeat
This outlines a great reason as to why Github silo can be risky and have
adverse side effects.

Does github offer the ability to host repositories in other legal
jurisdictions than the US?

------
DannyB2
Hey Admiral, and websites using this anti ad blocking technology,

I don't want to circumvent your copyright access control. I really don't.

All that I ask is a way to quickly and easily identify such sites so that I
can block them and never ever visit them again. Never ever. Even if the sites
and Admiral quit this despicable reprehensible behavior, I won't know it --
ever. Because I simply will never be back again.

Thank you!

------
BoiledCabbage
So right now this is one of the top stories on HN. How ad-blockers are being
threatened and from comments below, "how annoying website subscription
requests are."

Later this week, I expect we'll see another post about the derth of quality
journalism and the "unfortunate" continued growth of buzzfeed-style and
listicles taking over the net, slowly killing off quality content.

~~~
tobz
Sidenote: not that I think you are personally attacking them, but BuzzFeed
does have some quality investigative journalism.

Listicles and clickbait help pay the bills, and I didn't believe it when I was
informed the first time, but... it exists. Probably wouldn't be able to
continue without the clickbait ad revenue, though, heh. :P

------
_jal
127.0.0.1 www.functionalclam.com functionalclam.com

~~~
dsschnau
There's quite a few domains that host the same site, so it might be most
effective to block it at the ip level: 104.198.107.72

~~~
onewhonknocks
Thank you!

------
shmerl
Wow, this really stinks. They (Admiral) supposedly figured out how to use
DMCA-1201 to prevent ad blockers from adding their domains. That's a glaring
example which shows why this anti-circumvention garbage needs to be completely
repealed.

As some proposed, they should move the repo out of the jurisdiction with these
corrupted anti-circumvention laws.

------
pantalaimon
Can we have a list of domains that should be excluded from these kinds of
lists, so they may not be added again by accident?

------
guelo
This seems like Github's fuck up.

------
mdf
So, if the DMCA request turns out to be valid (e.g. hypothetically in court),
shouldn't all the ad-serving domains just include a similar anti-adblock
measure on their ad servers, thus making it so, that blocking their servers
would count as a circumvention?

------
fnkcjjvjjv
I guess my approach of blocking domains in the dns server turned out to be a
win after al

------
bogomipz
>"However, further research showed that this domain hosts the code of an anti-
adblocking startup Admiral"

Who goes to work for an anti ad blocking startup? What is their mission
statement "to make the web a more intrusive place"?

I am OK with Ads and understand their purpose in the business model. The
reason I use and ad blocker is because of how intrusive they are to consuming
actual content. You can subscribe yes but you will still get intrusive ads:

[http://www.kirkville.com/i-pay-for-news-why-do-i-still-
see-a...](http://www.kirkville.com/i-pay-for-news-why-do-i-still-see-ads/)

------
jadeklerk
There is a PR to add it back in:
[https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500](https://github.com/easylist/easylist/pull/500)

------
pmoriarty
The DMCA itself should be taken down. Where is the organizing against it?

------
bkul
Seems to me this can be handled the way the open-source community always
handles such drama: fork the repo a bunch of times. I'll probably start
keeping local copies of filter lists as well.

------
Dolores12
Is it safe to type this blocked URL in browser? Will i get sued?

~~~
arkitaip
Only if you delete all and any memories you have of the domain. I suggest a
bottle of strong alcohol _.

_ If the contents of the bottle doesn't facilitate in aforementioned memory
deletion, usage of the bottle to apply liberal amounts of blunt force is
suggested.

------
SkyLX
Yes because DMCAs work so well at stopping content distribution. It's not like
the lists can't be hosted on other sites, dare I say a bay where many pirates
roam.

------
mlcdf
What's with the "they would only take action if GitHub agreed." ? I'm
confused, what's the link between GitHub and EasyLink (except code hosting)?

------
gremlinsinc
Wonder if we could create a git in the blockchain... where DMCA just can't
exist/happen since there's no central authority to ask to take stuff down...

~~~
skymt
Copyright law doesn't care what technology you use to store and distribute
material. If you have a blockchain that contains unauthorized copyrighted
material, any host participating in that network would be legally subject to
DMCA requests by the copyright holder. What would the defense look like in
court, anyway? "We can't stop illegally distributing the plaintiff's content
because that would break the chain?" In effect it would just be a
spectacularly inefficient distributed storage system.

~~~
benchaney
You are overlooking the fact that there is no actual DMCA violation in this
case. The problem is that companies being bullied with frivolous DMCA threats
will comply because it is easier than fighting it. Using a blockchain removes
this as an option (and also makes the bullying pointless in the first place).

~~~
skymt
And when your DMCA-proof storage system receives a valid DMCA notice for an
actual case of infringement, what's the plan?

~~~
gremlinsinc
they will need contact each node..i.e. device that has the blockchain and file
a dmca directly w/ each one... maybe? lol

------
ehxcaet
What's to stop people from forking off that list and transitioning to another
one? Like what if ad blockers just switched to use EasyList2 instead of
EasyList?

~~~
romanovcode
As long as code is hosted in U.S. (GitHub) the cat and mouse game will
continue.

If you host your repo in some other country that does not care about U.S. DMCA
then it should be fine.

~~~
pfg
Other countries have copyright laws too. Most of these laws have some kind of
notice-followed-by-takedown protocol, and my understanding is that in many
jurisdictions, a DMCA takedown notice qualifies as such a notice. Probably the
only major difference would be the amount of effort the infringed party would
have to go through to enforce the takedown notice if the infringing party is
non-compliant.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

~~~
romanovcode
For example, if you host this list in Russia DMCA will not do anything because
(sorry for my French) Russia does not give a shit about U.S. copyright laws.

~~~
pfg
It's quite possible that Russian companies will not care about DMCA, but
that's not to say Russia doesn't have their own copyright law, which includes
a notice and takedown protocol. It's just a question of how much effort you
want to go through to take something down.

------
koenigdavidmj
Is there any incentive or law that causes Github to accept digitally submitted
DMCA orders through a web form at all? If it was possible for them to require
individually signed (by an actual person with a pen, not a picture of a
signature), individually snail-mailed requests, then that would at least make
the process take O(n) time and O(n) money, making it a bit harder to abuse.

------
ordu
If I'll write some kind of malware and comine it with technology that helps me
to protect digital rights, would antivirus violate DMCA?

------
gusfoo
You can tell a young person wrote that copy from the use of "on accident"
instead of "by accident" on the DMCA image.

[https://user-
images.githubusercontent.com/5947035/29184514-2...](https://user-
images.githubusercontent.com/5947035/29184514-276eeacc-7e0f-11e7-8a25-339659185ed3.png)

------
bigbugbag
Why use github ? Just move to another service or host your own repo. Be
outside US hence outside DMCA reach. problem solved.

------
codedokode
The reason why this is possible is because DMCA by itself is biased towards
interests of copyright holders and therefore can be abused. You can always
claim that some domain is used for protecting copyright and therefore blocking
access to that domain as well as distributing software that can do it is
clearly a violation of DMCA.

------
mlaretallack
This is the second time in a few months that I have heared DCMA and github
have come up (GadgetBridge). At this point in time I do feel that github's
policy on DCMA tale down notices are a little heavy handed am I right in
thinking that DCMA is a US only issue?

------
alexc05
I'm struggling to understand how preventing access to a tracking pixel
circumvents copyright.

Does this make sense to anyone? It sounds like they're "crying DMCA" because
someone turned off their analytics? Can analytics be a "right" under
copyright?

------
mi100hael
_> We had no option but to remove the filter without putting the Easylist repo
in jeopardy._

Or, you know, host your project somewhere that's actually free & open. Yet
another reason GitHub is about the worst place to host community software.

------
wyager
Request: someone please make a code-hosting site that's only accessible via
TOR.

------
emh68
How to really fix this: make an extension that detects when a request is made
to a domain owned by these scumbags and pop up a warning message, allowing the
user to make the right decision and close the tab and go elsewhere.

------
troyvit
grep functionalclam.com /etc/hosts 0.0.0.0 functionalclam.com

------
jgritty
[http://i.imgur.com/bhUFTLC.png](http://i.imgur.com/bhUFTLC.png)

------
JustSomeNobody
So, if blocking domains is illegal, what happens to Parental Controls? Or Open
DNS?

I sincerely hope Admiral gets smacked hard for this.

------
intrasight
I say don't just move it out of Github - move the list to a blockchain. It's
the obvious solution.

------
shmerl
Someone should make a separate explicit list with such kind of domains. Let
them get the Streisand effect.

------
wjdp
Is there a blocklist that contains domains like this? Would want to add that
into rotation.

------
epicide
Are they going to issue DMCA takedown requests to the other (currently) 76
forks?

~~~
bitshiffed
I would assume they'll follow up with a single request targeting all forks.
You can see in many of GitHub's other listed takedowns that one request can
target multiple repositories and forks at once.

------
cwkoss
Start a gofundme for raising money for a counterclaim? I'd throw some in.

------
natch
ROT-13 the entries in the list. Update ad blockers to read that format.
Solved.

------
cinskiy
Well, I just blocked functionalclam.com in my OS hosts file, try to DMCA that

------
tomc1985
Sounds like it's time to relocate to a self-hosted git repo

------
wodencafe
This is crazy, how can a link be a violation of the DMCA?

------
euske
I'd call this the adblock Straisand effect.

------
emilfihlman
So wait what, can someone explain:

What is being DMCAd here?

------
tmsldd
sudo sh -c 'echo "0.0.0.0 functionalclam.com" >> /etc/hosts'

------
tomschlick
They should just base64 encode domains. if the name isn't in cleartext can
they issue a DMCA for trademark infringement?

------
Markoff
why not just host ad filter lists outside US jurisdiction?

------
Akaahn
My web browser, my rules, if this triggers you, fuck right the fuck off.

------
feelin_googley
A quick Google search reveals the following.

"Admiral identifies audiences with ad blockers turned on, works to re-
establish those users (by opting in to a lightened ad experience, say, or
asking to be whitelisted) and then makes a small cut of every ad served to the
reacquired audience."

Source: [https://adexchanger.com/publishers/another-ad-blocking-
solut...](https://adexchanger.com/publishers/another-ad-blocking-solutions-
vendor-new-approach/)

tl;dr Admiral is a startup that measures an audience's "ad block rate". If the
rate is high, they then work to "establish explicit value propositions with
users and then serve them with minimal tags and tracking". It also mentions
plans to try to process micropayments.

"Admiral is built for a world where ad blockers have won."

Source: _Id._

tl;dr Unless the founder has changed course from what is described in the 2016
article, as far as I can tell, this startup _relies on widespread usage of
adblockers_. If users do not use adblockers, then this startup has nothing to
sell.

VC: "What happens if the ad blockers block the servers that serve the ad
blocker tracking image?"

Founder: "I'll send them DMCA notices."

VC: "Excellent. I'm in."

?

~~~
KGIII
Bordering on off-topic: what is, "Id?"

~~~
talyian
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idem)

~~~
KGIII
At risk of duplicating, thanks. I thought it was some company.

------
MentallyRetired
From Admiral's responding blogpost:

> 5\. We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original
> commit.

> Transparent engagement between publishers and visitors is a critical piece
> of that.

Umm, no? Admiral created an account that they hoped would be mistaken as an
official github bot or something. And then, instead of asking, they threatened
disruption of the repository.

So, in summary, they:

* Tried to hide their identity * Tried to trick people into thinking they were Github * Threatened, not asked, to remove the site from the list

Look, I'm okay with them wanting to remove a server that helps inform users
that they'd like to show ads on their customers sites. At the very least,
though, be honest about it.

Also, bless the EFF, man. Heading over there to donate right now.

~~~
default-kramer
Also

> 3\. Circumventing a publisher’s paywall or copyright access control
> technology is not OK

Would any technologist who doesn't work for Admiral consider javascript a
"copyright access control technology"? (I'm assuming their product is
javascript.)

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
....yes?

But not in the "hide content you've already sent" sense. However, a script
that verifies credentials and only then accesses content using those provided
credentials sounds like "access control technology".

My reasoning is simple: if I block the script and still see the content, it's
not access control; if I have to run the script to see the content, it is
access control.

------
nilved
The DMCA only applies to the US. Fork the repo and move on. It's time to
forget about American hosting.

~~~
exabrial
Sad but true :(

If we could only remove the logjam in congress right now to get some real work
done... currently the two parties are deadlocked in a power struggle and have
completely forgotten why they're there.

~~~
zanny
> currently the two parties are deadlocked in a power struggle

You mean since about 1790? There have always been two parties in congress
(minus the era of good feelings) and they have always had opposing ideology,
and have almost always blocked one another's proposals.

It is very naive to think the current Republican congress is anything
different or new. Their inaction is intentional - they need to pass their
anti-citizen legislation they were appointed for when people are _not_
watching them.

It is also somewhat inaccurate to blame it on "deadlocked parties". The
factions within them to varying degrees stifle them. The parties aren't
monoliths of ideology that uniformly vote the way the chair swings.

If congress isn't passing good legislation, its because the constituent
members of that congress aren't a majority good actors. Regardless of color.
Regardless of excuses given.

Politicians always act in the interest of _someone_. Sometimes its themselves.
It used to sometimes be for their constituents (because they had to appease
them for votes). Today it is mostly for corporate campaign donors. And those
donors _want_ the status quo. They don't _want_ the changes average Americans
want. The whole point of their buying and owning of politicians is to impede
change. Of course a congress filled with men told to maintain gridlock and
prevent reform by their masters will do so, and they do it in a way optimized
for themselves - by always blaming someone else and taking no responsibility
for the gridlock _you_ cause, your base can just keep reelecting you despite
hating congress in general. As long as the voters remain ignorant to this con,
the business interests get what they paid for - usually corporate welfare.

~~~
exabrial
> It is very naive to think the current Republican congress is anything
> different or new

The Democrats are doing now what the Republicans did for the last 8 years. And
I imagine in 7 years the opposite will happen.

~~~
allemagne
The Republicans control congress and the presidency. With some exceptions,
Republicans don't need a single Democratic vote to pass legislation.

~~~
mikeash
Most legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, which means you need at
least 8 Democrats (counting the two independents with them). Legislation which
Republicans can pass by themselves is the exception, not the rule. One of the
problems they had with their health care bill was that it had to fit into the
narrow budget reconciliation rules so that they could pass it with a simple
majority.

~~~
allemagne
Yes, a hurdle that Republicans already jumped over for the confirmation of
Neil Gorsuch and don't need a single Democratic vote to do so again.

~~~
mikeash
Confirmations are quite different from legislation. Most confirmations had
already been reduced to only requiring a simple majority. Supreme Court was
the only remaining position for which a confirmation still required 60 votes.

There doesn't appear to be any movement toward changing the rules for
legislation. If they were willing to do that, they wouldn't have tried so hard
to squeeze the AHCA under the budget reconciliation umbrella.

~~~
allemagne
Sure. They can change the rules for legislation in much the same way they were
willing to do so for Supreme Court nominations, and do it without Democrats.
That confirmation rules are the same as legislation, or that Republicans were
willing to use this option is obviously not what I was trying to say.

------
SoMisanthrope
Personally, this could be a real problem, if Ad services decide to pry open
the doors on our ability to deny them our screen real estate. I block Ads,
primarily due to the fact that I don't want my web surfing history and
behaviors captured by some uncontrollable mob a ad-servers. Further, most
advertisements are akin to the dreaded <flash> tag of old! animated, ugly, and
obtrusive.

We are coming to a point in the Internets genesis, where technology should
evolve to allow the "information consumer" to directly reward the "information
producer"... without the need of an intermediary like Google Adwords, etc.
etc.

~~~
warrenm
>allow the "information consumer" to directly reward the "information
producer"

That's what paywalls are.

------
walterstucco
Another reason to not host freedom tools on Github

------
yahna
Time to move the ad blocker hosting to a country that doesn't have backwards
ass laws and then hit back as hard as possible.

------
smegel
What is the IP range of these bastards so I can at least add them to
PeerBlock?

~~~
smegel
So there is a Chrome extensions called Domain Blocker, useful to add your own
custom domains.

Question is, what else is missing from Ad Blockers that I should add (apart
from these ____*)?

