
DMCA, Easylist, Adblock, Copyright Access Control and Admiral - bitshiffed
https://blog.getadmiral.com/dmca-easylist-adblock-copyright-access-control-admiral-10-things-to-know/
======
23o3o9d
So... pardon the language but:

Fuck you Admiral, and congratulations.

I had no idea who you were before but you've become a shining example of
corporate authoritarian entitlement.

It's my damn computer and if I want to deface a webpage on my computer I can
do it however I want--I can adblock it, I can use MS Paint to draw bananas on
it, or I can get my toddler to do it with an eraseable crayon.

~~~
quadrangle
Next thing you'll be telling us is that you can play a European DVD in an
American DVD player…

~~~
23o3o9d
Haha. I have a beautiful hardware-based-region-unlocked bluray player sitting
right here in fact. It works beautifully. One of my prized possessions from my
spouse. I have no idea where she got it from.

~~~
josteink
> hardware-based-region-unlocked bluray player

Thanks for reminding me one of the reasons I could never bother to get a
bluray player.

Regions? In the age of internet? _Really_?

------
gergles
The thing I found most hilarious about this is that the author of this post
previously worked at Grooveshark, a company that was only remotely successful
because they flaunted copyright the entire time they operated.

That he's now using the DMCA (incorrectly) to protect his business model is
the height of ridiculousness in my book.

~~~
lloydde
I thought the OPer name looked familiar. On our second point though, the OP
seems to suggest that this was the mechanism GitHub recommended using and the
DMCA does seem to include language for tooling that circumvents access
controls, but if I remember the DVD situation correctly it wasn't upheld at
least in that situation, at least in some jurisdictions -- fair use.

------
danielhlockard
I had no idea who Admiral was before, and I can't say I have a great opinion
of them now. I'm sorry, but you don't get to control what I can and cannot ad
block.

This is mind blowing since Dan was the COO of GROOVESHARK which basically
didn't care about copyright, at all.

~~~
y4mi
at least we've got another uri to add to the adblock list now.

------
stordoff
> We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original
> commit. / Their response seemed to indicate they would only take action if
> GitHub agreed.

That's your take on that interaction? To me, the commit comment reads as
someone borderline impersonating GitHub. "has been reported to circumvent
copyright access controls" \- reported to whom, exactly? By linking to
GitHub's policies, you suggest that it is GitHub, but A) according to your
post did not report it until _after_ that comment, and B) a report to GitHub
doesn't mean you can demand removal through alternative channels.

~~~
dreae
Let's not forget that the commentor is named 'dmcahelper' with a profile
description which reads 'Help all parties understand and resolve DMCA issues
efficiently and effectively to minimize file and repository impacts.' And as
far as I can tell the account's only activity has been to comment on EasyList.

Doesn't seem very borderline to me, looks like a blatant attempt to confuse
the issue by pretending to be some sort of authority.

------
drtillberg
If blocking the domain grants access to the material, somewhat like a door
that opens when no key is presented, it would seem unclear how this is an
"effective[]" technological control.

Also, the DMCA (Section 1201(i)) permits blocking of effective technological
controls that are capable of collecting or disseminating personally
identifying information about the online activities of a person. Admiral does
not address this, and looking at the details it seems perhaps the issue would
be the rationale for the blocking (privacy or a mixed purpose).

------
seretogis
It looks like the EFF has offered assistance, and I really hope they follow-
through to prevent this from setting a precedent.

------
bitshiffed
Follow up from yesterday's EasyList takedown
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228)
.

EDIT: Summary of issue up to now [http://telegra.ph/Ad-blocking-is-under-
attack-08-11](http://telegra.ph/Ad-blocking-is-under-attack-08-11) .

------
JumpCrisscross
How would one configure Adblock Plus to ensure Admiral's domains are blocked
irrespective of whether EasyList capitulates?

(Asking as a hypothetical, of course.)

~~~
jasonkostempski
Are you using Adblock Plus on purpose? It is no longer an ad blocking tool.

~~~
mgbmtl
For what it's worth, ABP's slogan is "Surf the web without annoying ads" and
they've gone to court to defend that. (I stick to ABP for this reason, and
disable the "display acceptable ads" option -- assuming that's what your rant
is about?)

~~~
jasonkostempski
Slogans don't mean anything. It's now an extortion tool. Their definition of
"acceptable" is already bad (tracking of any kind is unacceptable) and subject
to change on a whim. Maybe your "option" won't work one day. Why not just use
a tool without a huge conflict of interest? EFF will continue to fight against
legal threats against ad blocking. ABP needs to defend it because they want to
continue extorting large companies.

------
bitshiffed
Anybody know the usual amount of time it takes for GitHub to post a DMCA
notice?

They should've received Admirals takedown at least 2 days ago, but it still
hasn't shown up on
[https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master](https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master)
.

~~~
bitshiffed
It finally appeared:
[https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-08-02-L...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-08-02-LevenLabs.md)
, received 01/August/2017.

------
jdennaho
tell us more about how you are garbage

------
msimpson
It's important to note that Admiral is making the claim that this domain is
used as part of their platform which protects the integrity of paywalls, which
in turn guards copyrighted material of their clients. Therefore, this would be
a correct application of the DMCA according to 17 U.S. Code § 1201 -
Circumvention of copyright protection systems:

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201)

Subsection A specifically states, "No person shall circumvent a technological
measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this
title."

So while I do not endorse the mechanism of paywalls: if Admirals narrative and
claims hold true, this is in fact a correct application of the DMCA.

~~~
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.

