I don't know if the Streisand Effect is going to happen with this one, but it seems very odd that the DMCA could even be applicable here.
Can I copyright my domain name?
Copyright law does not protect domain names.
This is an invalid takedown request.
Disclaimer: I was the plaintiff.
Note that HN has an issue linking to Wikipedia pages ending in a period, so add a '.' after this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Policy_Group_v._Diebold....
You can URL-encode the last character to make HN happy, i.e.:
Companies use it to hide criticism (VW with emission, game developers with reviews, etc.) and YouTube is full of whining on their idiotic quasi-DMCA process where companies can claim and then take down or monetize content they don't own (Kevin MacLeod's royalty free music, public domain music, static noise, game reviews that conain gameplay and are negative, etc.) and you have to dispute it and provide your real life details to Google as if they are a court to make it go away.
to "My Filters" the right way to do it?
echo "0.0.0.0 functionalclam.com" >> /etc/hosts
but a subsequent http request for http://functionalclam.com resulted in a page served by the web service listening on localhost.
edit: append to, don't clobber /etc/hosts
It's known as "This" Network.
Below are some of the other whimsical domains listed as pointing to this address.
Whether we send one of the names below in our Host: header or some randomly chosen name, we still get the same response, devoid of any content, except an <img> tag to track the user.
But if that interpretation does hold up in the courts, it could lead to a very slippery slope where it becomes illegal to refuse to consume specific content. The equivalent of not being able to change the channel on the TV or go do something else when the adverts start, or even... just close one's eyes and ears.
Yes, it does seem like a bizarre legal theory, since a simpler way to bypass the anti-adblock would be to disable the adblock. That is, it would be a DMCA violation to not block ads, since by not blocking ads you're bypassing the anti-adblock and watching the content!
I could see ad blocking spun as an unauthorized derivative work.
"...Prohibited acts therefore include descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an encrypted work, or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating or impairing a technological measure without the authority of the copyright owner..."
It likely wasn't functionalclam.com itself that filed the request. Rather, the owner of a site that uses some ad tech hosted there is likely claiming that EasyList is aiding in the impairment of a technological measure they implemented, which according to this interpretation, is a violation of the DMCA.
It would likely be an interesting court battle, but apparently isn't one that the EasyList folks are willing to defend at the moment.
Could my comment "Everyone, please block functionalclam.com" also be subject of a DMCA takedown request then?
People have trouble conceptualizing small probabilities, so that minimum threshold of choosing A and being wrong times "all the money in the world" might be > $500, so it's always rational to delete your comment if you don't want to schedule time with a lawyer.
The EasyList filter lists are sets of rules originally designed for Adblock that automatically remove unwanted content from the internet, including annoying adverts, bothersome banners and troublesome tracking.
There appear to be quite a few of these domains, serving the exact same landing page, with Namecheap whois protection, and hosted on Google Cloud.
Not finding much else, except they do appear to be hosting ad-block detectionn ( https://unknowntray.com/4430b41e83ded20e5f99d3149b838ba9394d... , ref: https://forum.adguard.com/index.php?threads/resolved-venture... ).
Are they DMCAing about blocking ad-blocker-blockers being a tool to "circumvent copyright access controls"?
Also slightly disappointing you take PayPal donations, if any party is nasty in the ad industry... it is them.
It does mention it records metrics to help understanding and authorising access to their site and copyrighted content. Afaik this is called logging; not tracking.
That includes not listing things willy nilly because YOU think there is proper reason. At some point there will be a party that will call your efforts, in case you keep listing things without proof/reason, defamation or libel...
I don't list things willy nilly. See here for the policy: https://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/policy.php.
so.. mr quality control, are you going to remove it again?
Basically any sane site owner/operator logs access request to his or her site. Certain security policies like PCI also force parties in payment industry to log everything. Why then don't block PayPal? All credit card processors? If you think logging is the same as tracking.
At least then be consistent about it.
Though this was just a shameless plug by that blocklist operator. The url was the topic, he shows that he is is 'bad ass' and just lists it because it was removed at another party via DMCA (claimed by OP). Then says the site EXPLICITLY mentions it does tracking, while it doesn't show this at all.
Those blacklists have a very few unique parties that actually properly collect and maintain a list of urls. The rest just copies the others. Parties like pi-hole etc don't contribute anything, but integrate and copy years old blacklists of each other and then claim to be some internet saviour. If you really care about the connections you have outgoing, use proper egress filtering. (little snitch like apps e.g.) This way you will filter everything, and not just the list of urls that are known by those list maintainers.
If i was that party i'd consider legal actions. And dont read 'i say it doesnt do tracking', i say it doesnt mention it at all on the site, something the blacklist operator does claim. I prefer people have proper proof before claiming something and blacklisting a party.
> So you would favour blocking all sites and services that do any logging?
I make an effort to block as many as I can without breaking the page I'm trying to visit, yes. Usually this means having umatrix block about half the requests from a site.
> If you think logging is the same as tracking.
Logging by an analytics company, yes. And I do block those; Google is the most common, but this one counts.
> Parties like pi-hole etc don't contribute anything
This is a separate topic, but: Usability counts.
Usability, thats another topic indeed :) usability, should NEVER compromise quality!
And over years of dealing with many of them, i cannot give them any credit for their quality. Certainly not when i realised, found out, there are only a handful of 'original' source lists. And the rest 95% just blindly copies and appends from others, and never bother to revalidate their own list.
Regardless, this seems to become an endless loop, so lets exit() and i wish all a nice weekend!