Anti-adblock-killer illegal and violating the DMCA?

[gnits]

What is the stance of the authors on the accusation of this extension being an illegal tool to violate the DMCA?

The reasoning goes like this:

1. Adblock blockers employed by sites are a form or copy protection / digital rights management (DRM) / access control software.
2. Circumvention of any of these technologies is explicitly forbidden under the DMCA.
3. Therefore, anti-adblock-killer, which enables the circumvention of said blockers is clearly illegal under anti-circumvention laws.

Have any lawyers been consulted on this issue?

[Mrhohoho]

Just from my Curiosity. Will you provide the source of the accusation? I want to see it for myself.

and I wonder How 'NOT using Someone's Copyrighted material(blocking adblock javascript)' even Violate the copyright law. accusator need to explain this. And to be fair. I'v never seen a single site enforcing user to agree rules like 'you must agree to watch our ads to use our Site'. Well. I never agreed to watch any kind of ads from begining. So I have right to block every single ads they throwing at my face.

[reek]

@gnits From what I read of the DMCA law, I do not see how AAK is illegal under any circumstances violate the copyright.

[gnits]

@reek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#United_States

There are other kind of anti-circumvention laws in other countries as well, but they all have in common that they outlaw any circumvention of digital access control / DRM / copy protection technologies. And it seems obvious that an anti adblocker, which only allows access to the content and service when ads are not blocked, is such an access control mechanism.

[gnits]

@Mrhohoho "Just from my Curiosity. Will you provide the source of the accusation? I want to see it for myself." Feel free to Google it: https://www.google.hu/search?q=ad+blocking+%22anti+circumvention%22

"and I wonder How 'NOT using Someone's Copyrighted material(blocking adblock javascript)' even Violate the copyright law. " We're not talking about the direct violation of the copyright law here (which might very well also apply, but I'm not talking about that), but about the violation of the DMCA.

"And to be fair. I'v never seen a single site enforcing user to agree rules like 'you must agree to watch our ads to use our Site'." Well, there's a thing called implied contract, which means that even by using a service or consuming content you agree to under whatever terms those are made available to you. These terms are usually laid out in a ToS - so if that explicitly states that you must not block the ads or any parts of the page, etc. to access the service, then you definitely must not do so. But again, what we're talking about here is not the violation of such contracts either, but the violation of the DMCA.

"Well. I never agreed to watch any kind of ads from begining. So I have right to block every single ads they throwing at my face." One does not lead to the other. See above. But, again, what we're talking about is not that blocking ads is illegal per se (which might be, but I'm not talking about that now), but that circumvention of an access control mechanism, like an anti adblocker is illegal under the DMCA.

[reek]

@gnits I think you're a bad interpretation of the law. Because the anti-adblock are mechanisms to protect the revenue from advertising and not to protect copyrighted content.

[kosmonautbruce]

IANL, but the only way to know this would be for a lawsuit to happen. Absent that, it's impossible to say if anti-adblock would be considered a circumvention technology.

More importantly, it would depend entirely on the jurisdiction, different countries have different versions of DMCA-style laws. In Germany, for instance, the publisher of the Bild newspaper got a restraining order against Eyeo/Ad Block Plus when there was discussion on the ABP forums of ways to get around the Bild "ad wall" recently erected. Bild also sued a German videoblogger who had a tutorial on YouTube about getting around the Bild ad wall. Both the blogger and Eyeo backed down and removed the content, in the face of the lawsuits.

http://digiday.com/publishers/adblock-plus-accuses-axel-springer-censorship-ad-block-move/ https://www.ridingfree.org/2015/10/26/block-the-blogging-of-blocking/

I think its a BS move on the part of the publishers, but it could happen.

[Giwayume]

The web standards that visually construct a web page in a web browser (HTML, CSS, Javascript) are a suggesion of how a web page should be viewed. In the end if you want to traverse websites by reading the raw HTML, it is perfectly in your right to do so.

wget http://google.com/

A company's control of their website stops once they've sent their static files to the client. These files are now open to the user's interpretation of how to construct them. If they weren't that could mean dreadful consequences for browser developers because an accidental bug that doesn't follow the web standards could lead to a lawsuit. It would also mean that accessibility software like screen readers that allow blind people to traverse websites could be illegal.

[Watilin]

@Giwayume I totally support your argument.

For the same exact reason as Adblock is legal – and this has been officially stated by the court of Hambourg – any tool designed to improve or fix the functioning of Adblock can in no way be deemed illegal.

[gnits]

@Giwayume "A company's control of their website stops once they've sent their static files to the client." That's not how it works. In reality the recipient is still bound by the applicable laws (like copyright law or DMCA), and by other legal agreements - including those he agreed to in order to get access to the website and its contents. So, the client/browser/user can't do anything with the acquired content that's prohibited by either the law or for ex. by the ToS of the website.

"If they weren't that could mean dreadful consequences for browser developers because an accidental bug that doesn't follow the web standards could lead to a lawsuit." Not really. W3C documents like HTML5, CSS3, etc. are not "standards" (in the legal sense), just "recommendations". That's the highest status any W3C document can reach. Standards violation might be prosecuted in some cases, but there's no law against not following recommendations of an organization which is not even a standards organization (in the legal sense).

Also, criminal prosecution of most offenses requires criminal intent, which obviously does not apply for a software bug - which by definition is accidental, and in turn can not be prosecuted criminally if criminal intent is required. And civil liability is excluded or minimized by the browser's licensee agreement.

But then again, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the - by the way willful and intentional - violation of the DMCA which has nothing to do with not following standards/recommendations, because of bugs.

"It would also mean that accessibility software like screen readers that allow blind people to traverse websites could be illegal." No, it doesn't mean that. Partly because screen readers happen to be explicitly exempted from some DMCA restrictions.

But then again, we're not talking about the legality of screen readers or even ad blockers per se, but about the legality of a anti-adblock-killer, which circumvents the adblock ban of websites.

[gnits]

@reek "I think you're a bad interpretation of the law. Because the anti-adblock are mechanisms to protect the revenue from advertising and not to protect copyrighted content." One does not exclude the other. It's protecting the content by technical means in order to protect the revenue stream of the publisher. But that holds true for any and all other commercial copyright protection methods.

For ex. the CSS protection of DVDs is there to protect the revenue stream of the publishers. The DRM protection of ebooks or digital music is there to protect the revenue stream of the publishers. The HDCP of video systems is there to protect the revenue of the content owners. All commercial DRM / copy protection systems have that as their primary purpose.

So, unless you want to argue that all these protection systems are legal to circumvent (which they are not), I think don't think you have an actual argument for the legality of circumvention of adblock blockers either.

[gnits]

@Watilin "For the same exact reason as Adblock is legal – and this has been officially stated by the court of Hambourg' Actually, that's not what happened. In reality what the Hamburg court did was: they threw out the case brought against Eyeo by Axel Springer on the basis, that the latter tried to sue the former by invoking competition law, and the court deemed these two companies not to be competitors.

However, the legality of ad blocking itself was never investigated by the court, and thus it has not been deemed legal by it. I know, Eyeo's press release states something different, but they're just plain out lying through their teeth. Just go to the original source and check it for yourself: http://www.telemedicus.info/urteile/Wettbewerbsrecht/Werbung/1584-LG-Hamburg-Az-416-HKO-15914-Zulaessigkeit-von-Adblockern-mit-Whitelist-Funktion.html

That said, let me reiterate to you again, that right here and right now I'm not debating the legality of ad blocking per se, but questioning the legality of anti-adblock-killer, based on the fact that it circumvents an access control mechanism (anti-adblocking), which is explicitly forbidden by the DMCA.

If you've comments regarding the latter, then please elaborate them. But there's no point in trying to argue about the legality of ad blocking itself (even if it's not rooted in false information), because that's not the subject here, and because of the possible legality of ad blocking itself does not imply the legality of anti-adblock-killer, because of the things explained above.

[Watilin]

Well, my deutsch is a bit rusty but I believe you about the Hamburg court. Thank you for the enlightenment.

As for DMCA, I dont think we can formally bind any copyrighted work with the advertising distributed on the same support. The sum of the work plus the ad does not make one single product.

Now I would be of bad faith if I wouldn't talk about terms of service. I saw a number of websites explicitely stating that, by using it, I must not block their ads. To be honest, should these sites implement an Adblock prevention mechanism, I'm not sure that it would be legal to circumvent it.

But, practically speaking, I think Adblock's illegality will have to be proven before Aak's one.

I see tomorrow a relative who is lawyer. Even though – being non american – she may not know well about DMCA, I'll ask her about this.

[gnits]

@Watilin "The sum of the work plus the ad does not make one single product, /a minima/ for the reason they hasn't been made by the same author" That's not the determining factor here. For ex. a movie also consists of multiple works (screenplay, music/score, costumes, actors' likeliness, etc) that are copyrighted or copyrightable on their own and not created by the same author. Yet, I don't think you'd argue that a movie is not a copyrighted work (as a whole), or that the DMCA doesn't apply to it, would you? The same goes for a web page.

"I saw a number of websites explicitely stating that, by using it, I must not block their ads. To be honest, should these sites implement an Adblock prevention mechanism, I'm not sure that it would be legal to circumvent it." If they state that you must not block ads, and the ToS can be considered valid, then even just blocking the ads themselves (even in the absence of an adblock prevention mechanism, and the circumvention of that) would constitute breach of the contract, and thus be illegal. But again, I'm not arguing about that here, but specifically about aak.

"But, practically speaking, I think Adblock's illegality will have to be proven before Aak's one." It's the other way round. Aak can be illegal even then, if ad blocking itself is legal. Like, you know, creating a backup copy of your music might be legal (under fair use), but circumventing a copy protection mechanism to facilitate that copying is definitely illegal (because it violates the DMCA). That said, if ad blocking itself is illegal, then obviously aak can't be used legally either.

"I see tomorrow a relative who is lawyer. Even though – being non american – she may not know well about DMCA, I'll ask her about this." That would be a good idea. Even though I think she'd have to understand also the technical merits of ad blocking and aak fully, to assess the situation properly. But it's a good start. Anyway, I'd recommend showing her at least this discussion here, so she gets at least the technical insights and legal considerations already presented here, and can comment on those, instead of just having to start from scratch.

[ghost]

Would you say that circumventing geo-blocking and all tools/systems used for that purpose are also illegal since geo-blocking is a form of digital access control? And what about circumventing censorship in general?

[Giwayume]

@gnits "Not really. W3C documents like HTML5, CSS3, etc. are not "standards" (in the legal sense), just "recommendations". That's the highest status any W3C document can reach. Standards violation might be prosecuted in some cases, but there's no law against not following recommendations of an organization which is not even a standards organization (in the legal sense). "

This is exactly what I'm getting at. If I want to go out and create my own web browser with a custom implementation of CSS that hides every classname that contains the word "ad" by default, that is no different from writing a browser extension that does the exact same thing.

And no, there is no court case on this earth that is going to prosecute anyone for not following web standards. It holds zero weight. It's just an agreed upon way of doing things across countries and web browser developers.

[Watilin]

I admit my one-author argument was bad, and I edited my comment quickly after I posted it to remove that part, but you happend to find it anyway.

My relative told me what I already told here: the ad isn't part of the copyrighted work. An ad protection mechanism isn't a copyright protection mechanism, so circumventing it doesn't fall under the DMCA conditions.

Regarding terms of service, this belongs to the domain of trade laws, which may differ greatly from one country to another, so she couldn't say.

[gnits]

@Watilin "An ad protection mechanism isn't a copyright protection mechanism" Nobody said it was one. What I said was that an anti-adblocker (which does not grant you access to the content with an active ad blocker in your browser) is an "access control mechanism". Circumvention of which is prohibited by the DMCA.

"My relative told me what I already told here: the ad isn't part of the copyrighted work." Which, again, is not what's argued here and is completely irrelevant to the point.

[Giwayume]

Creating scripts that cover up content on a page isn't an access control mechanism, because the website has already sent that content to the user publicly via the HTML file.

Choosing to not send the content in the first place via server-side scripting IS an access control mechanism, because the content never arrives in the user's hands. See the difference?

[satrianiboys]

Just read until post #3, then i didn't read the rest. Must be a butt hurt web owners/ads company/relative lol

[kosmonautbruce]

Regardless of personal motivation, gnits does raise important points. The truth, as I see it, is that ad-blocking is probably legal in most cases.

Bypassing "ad-walls" like we are now seeing from Wired, Bild, Forbes, etc. is murkier, because it touches on the prohibition of "anti-circumvention technologies" in the DMCA and similar laws in the EU. Fundamentally, we don't know the answer, as the issue has not been judged in a court yet, AFAIK, yet it's easy to see publishers taking the stance that "ad-walls" are just like pay walls, and therefore legally enforceable.

Clearly, publishers in Germany like Axel Springer/Bild are happy to go to court to protect their business model, and I believe it's a matter of when, not if, they sue makers of anti-adblock killer type technologies. I think they are stupid to do so, but considering that they are still regularly suing Eyeo over AdBlock Plus, unsuccessfully, I would not expect their attitudes to change any time soon.

I hope reek does not live in Germany, if only to avoid any possible hassles.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:39 AM, satrianiboys notifications@github.com wrote:

Just read until post #3 https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/3, then i didn't read the rest. Must be a butt hurt web owners/ads company/relative lol

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034#issuecomment-186372424 .

619.857.6924 bruce@brucelidl.com

[gnits]

@Giwayume "Creating scripts that cover up content on a page isn't an access control mechanism, because the website has already sent that content to the user publicly via the HTML file." Following your argument, a DRM system that runs on your computer and controls access to previously downloaded content or content stored on an optical or magnetic storage medium is not an access control mechanism, because the content it protects is already has been sent to and/or is in the possession of the user. Or a login system of your operating system is not an access control mechanism, because the data and files it protects are already on the hard drive.

Obviously, that's not how things work. Not on the web either. The definition of an access control mechanism does nowhere imply that the limitations it imposes are only applicable to remote content, or that content that's been downloaded to the user's computers can not be subject of it. The DMCA itself also makes no distinction between remote and local content or systems, because - for the purpose of copyright protection or access control - these terms are completely irrelevant.

[Giwayume]

Incorrect, DRM involves encrypted files. Encryption is a form of access control. HTML is a human readable language.

And seriously, don't you have better places to waste time? Go watch a movie, or read a book, or go throw a frisbee with your dog, or something. I heard Deadpool is a good movie. Go watch that.

[Giwayume]

@gnits I can't help but feel you have the ever so slightest personal emotional involvement in your argument considering you've forked https://github.com/gnits/revive-adserver.

You're not trying to be rational and this topic is not helping anyone, including yourself.

[gnits]

@Giwayume "Incorrect, DRM involves encrypted files." Wrong. A DRM technology MIGHT employ encryption, but DOES NOT necessarily do so. Then again, we're talking about "access control mechanism" here, not specifically about DRMs. They were just brought forward as an (non-exclusive) example of the former.

"Encryption is a form of access control. HTML is a human readable language." Both true, but irrelevant conclusions. Neither of them disprove that anti ad-blocking is a form of access control.

"And seriously, don't you have better places to waste time? " Are you asking this, because you feel you can't defend your point in this argument, and you wouldn't like me to keep pointing out that? If you would have rational and valid arguments, you could just present those, and wouldn't have to fall back to ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies, would you?

"You're not trying to be rational and this topic is not helping anyone, including yourself." Well, I certainly wouldn't want the author(s) of AAK to land in jail, because of "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner " (ie. anti ad blocking technologies). Would you? Unless you would, you must agree that it might be a great help (for ex. in avoiding some legal proceedings and possible jail time) for them to point out the potential illegality of AAK.

[ghost]

I don't see what the point of this discussion is. Do you guys think you can judge if anti-adblock circumvention is illegal or not? It's unclear if anything and only a court case could clear the situation up. If it was declared illegal ABP and EasyList would both go down too since they're already circumventing anti-adblock on a lot of sites through e.g. whitelisting certain scripts. Even then there is nothing stopping a user from disabling JavaScript for circumvention which works fine for many sites (for example news articles).

[Giwayume]

@gnits haha no one is going to jail here.

[ghost]

I feel like this post is just fear mongering by @gnits. Also this:

Both the blogger and Eyeo backed down and removed the content, in the face of the lawsuits.

The blogger did not sign the restraining order and all Axel Springer has done is send more warning letters. Eyeo probably got in trouble in court because of acceptable ads. They make money with ads just like Axel Springer and are therefore a competitor.

Fun fact: uBlock Origin in standard configuration on Firefox circumvents the bild.de block so why does Axel Springer not care? They probably know they don't have a chance.

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere "I feel like..." Well, discussions of feelings are for therapy groups. But here I'd rather stick to the discussion of facts, laws and logic. Now, if you have a valid point to make, you can bolster it with facts and logical arguments. And if you can't, you should probably consider accepting the point of the person, who can. This is really Logical Discussion 101.

"The blogger did not sign the restraining order" One does not have to "sign" a restraining order - it's imposed on someone by the court. That's the whole point of it. That said the blogger didn't get a restraining order, but a cease and desist letter. I'm just clearing this all up here to show how much non-sense and non-factual information are brought up in this discussion by some people.

"and all Axel Springer has done is send more warning letters." Again, those are called cease and desist letters. And AS did not only send out those, but they also successfully argued in court against two of their targets: Adblock and Adshield, and the court ordered those two ad blockers to be withdrawn from the app stores (in Germany).

Axel Springer were also granted a preliminary injunction against Eyeo (the maker of Adblock Plus), which forbid the latter the distribution of code snippets (ie. blocklist entries) that enabled the circumvention of AS's anti ad blocker technology. So, basically, they forbid ABP to develop, distribute and/or employ technologies similar to AAK.

Source: http://www.mobilegeeks.de/news/axelspringer-juristische-erfolge-gegen-werbeblocker/

"Eyeo probably got in trouble in court because of acceptable ads. " As explained above, Eyeo got in trouble because it distributed and published code snippets that could be used to circumvent AS's anti ad blockers scripts, and because the courts obviously deemed those being a direct violation of the anti-circumvention laws (ie. the German version of the DMCA).

So, in relation to Germany and at this point it's rather safe to assume that the courts would deem AAK also definitely illegal, would someone actually sue the creators. Of course German courts have no jurisdiction outside Germany - but who knows where the creators are from. And the anti-circumvention laws are all similar all over the world, including the DMCA, that I brought up initially in the title.

[ghost]

So instead of making better ads they want to outlaw anti-adblock circumvention. It's astounding to me how blind these people are that they don't see why people use adlockers. Or they don't care about the users and just want to force ads down our throats. What's kind of ironic is that the content on bild.de is worse than the ads. They are basically redundant and have been constantly losing readers for years. I don't understand their problem anyways. Sites like Reddit have no problem with adblockers so why can't news outlets finance themselves like Reddit does? Or look at GMail. The only ads are small text ads that sometimes appear above the inbox. They don't even need to load any additional scripts for those. No one wants a car commercial with sound while trying to read an article. That's why most people use adblockers. They don't even consider the malware or behaviour tracking aspect. All they want is not to be yelled at. Are the advertisers too dense to understand that?

[ghost]

And I still don't see what the point of this thread was other than fear mongering. One court case doesn't mean anyone is going to jail. If Reek was actually worried they would better contact a lawyer than listen to some heavily biased, self-declared experts on the internet.

[kosmonautbruce]

I am a huge supporter of adblocking, in all its forms, and believe it is our absolute right to determine for ourselves what our computers do and show. Unfortunately, there are corporate interests that disagree strongly with that notion and have shown their willingness to use various legal systems as a weapons against technology they feel threatens their revenue stream. German publishers have been the most aggressive in pursuing this route, and maybe it's because Eyeo/AdBlock Plus is located there, I don't know. I hope they don't go after other ad blockers, like AAK, but it would not surprise me if they do try it. That is all I was trying to say in response to @gnits.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:09 AM, IDKwhattoputhere <notifications@github.com

wrote:

And I still don't understand what the point of this thread was.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer/issues/1034#issuecomment-186660331 .

619.857.6924 bruce@brucelidl.com

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

So instead of making better ads they want to outlaw anti-adblock circumvention.

Wrong conclusion. One obviously doesn't have anything to do with the other. They can make the ads better AND keep anti ad block circumvention illegal at the same time. One does not prohibit the other.

Not that what constitutes "better" wouldn't be fully subjective, and that there could be a clear agreement between parties on what's a "better" ad. Or that ad blockers would block ads based on their "goodness" and they would stop working once ads have become "better" - whatever that might mean. Just saying.

It's astounding to me how blind these people are that they don't see why people use adlockers. Or they don't care about the users and just want to force ads down our throats.

They don't want to force anything down your threat. Nobody is forcing you to visit their site and use their service. But if you do, you incur operational costs on them, that has to be covered somehow. And if you don't cover that cost yourself by directly paying cash to them in a form of a subscription, then the money has to come from somewhere else.

Ads are shown by web pages to you just because they care about you, and because they don't want you to have to buy a subscription to access their content. Ads are a minimal inconvenience in exchange for that, and in most cases if you still don't want to see them (ie. ads), you just can buy a subscription, and access the content completely ad free. That's how it works in the case of Axel Springer / Bild.de, too.

Sites like Reddit have no problem with adblockers so why can't news outlets finance themselves like Reddit does? Or look at GMail. The only ads are small text ads that sometimes appear above the inbox.

These services are not run by paid for editors, but merely provide the framework for information exchange. This way their operational costs are lower than for ex. a news publisher's, where a lot of paid people are working all the time on generating new content. So Reddit and GMail can be kept running on smaller ads, because their operation is not as much cost intensive, as that of for ex. Bild.de's.

That said even Reddit and Gmail DO depend on advertisement, and couldn't be kept running if they wouldn't be showing ads and nobody would buy paid subscription to them, either. The same holds true for every single service on the internet, that's not run on government money. And you do pay for the latter, too, as part of your taxes.

They don't even need to load any additional scripts for those. No one wants a car commercial with sound while trying to read an article.

That's right. But most ads do not make any sound. And there's no free lunch anyway. If you don't want to pay for the services you're using, the providers have to cover their costs by other means. Like for ex. by running ads alongside their content.

They don't even consider the malware or behaviour tracking aspect.

They do consider them. But that still doesn't change the fact, that if you don't pay for the stuff you consume, then the money has to be made some other ways 'round. For example by showing ads to you. If there would be better means to cover their costs, they'd do that. There isn't, and that's why they're using ads. That's the most accessible, the least disturbing, the most cost effective, that scales best, etc.

That said ads do not pose a bigger security threat to you than any web pages does. Actually, they don't even pose the same threat. Why? Because ads can only used to distribute the same kind of malware than any web page can, but ad networks are usually far more secure and far more vested than is the web page of Average Joe. Which you're obviously happy to visit any time, while blocking ads.

The chance of you getting infected through ads on the internet is not only miniscule and probably less than you getting hit by a car on the road, but there's a far greater chance that you will be infected by the web page containing the ads, than by the ads themselves. So, if you were really worried about security, it would make more sense to block the pages themselves than the ads.

Of course that's not what you do, and that's what's so telling about this issue.

All they want is not to be yelled at. Are the advertisers too dense to understand that?

No. It's you who doesn't understand, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that you can't take things the way you want, whenever you want, and force your way on everyone else, just because you want that stuff.

You've to give something in return when you take or consume something. And if you don't want to pay cash, then you will have to tolerate the ads - or you just simply not visit that site at all. But consuming the content and refusing to pay for it both in cash and with your eyeballs (by the means of an ad blocker) is not an option. And publishers have every right to refuse to serve you if still you try to do that. That's what's anti ad blocking is about.

[ghost]

But consuming the content and refusing to pay for it both in cash and with your eyeballs (by the means of an ad blocker) is not an option.

Yes it is. What are you talking about? If ads don't get better they stay blocked. Period. Often I don't care if websites tell me to disable adblock. Most journalism now is garbage and doesn't deserve to annoy me with ads. Their content isn't worth it most of the time. And if it is I will keep circumventing the anti-adblock. Legally or not. And I don't even feel bad about it either since ads suck so bad (slowing down devices, tracking users, annoying/disrupting browsing experience, delivering malware, unethical ("leaked GF pics", which might even be illegal), scamming, creating artificial needs, using up bandwidth). It's not like laws have stopped piracy either. Good alternatives have reduced it and that's the only acceptable way this situation will go too. Take a look at the site you linked (mobilegeeks.de). They replaced ads with donations and seem to do well with it because the readers deem the articles worth it. People like you always talk about the content creators when in reality at least 60% of the money goes to the advertising company. Also for example YouTubers make most money from sponsors or merchandise and not from the ads. Also a lot of "content" now is pure click-bait or stolen and the only reason for that is ads. Blocking ads has the potential to put an end to that. Internet advertising in it's current form is intolerable and there's no incentive for that to change if people don't block ads. With adblockers the users can decide to whitelist websites they like and want to support and the advertisers and websites have a reason to make ads better. I remember as a kid the worst feeling was having seen a commercial for a toy on TV but not immediately getting said toy. Unfulfilled wishes are also a major cause for depression which is an enormous problem, in developed nations too.

Because ads can only used to distribute the same kind of malware than any web page can, but ad networks are usually far more secure and far more vested than is the web page of Average Joe.

Oh, really? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-Benefits-of-blocking-3rd-party-iframe-tags#malware-protection Never had a virus in all the years I've been on the internet but the computers of relatives who don't use adblockers usually return hundreds of results when using Malwarebytes. There's even a correlation between countries that have higher rates of malware infections and lower rates of adblock usage. Your only aim is to spread FUD and push the agenda of the advertising industry.

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

Yes it is. What are you talking about? If ads don't get better they stay blocked.

Ads will also stay blocked if they get better - because with blocking you won't even see how good or bad they are or how they have changed. You need to see and judge the ads to be able to exert a positive change on them (whatever that might be in your opinion) - but you can't do that if you're not seeing them. That's the point I'm making - and that's what obviously keeps going wooosh over your head.

It's not like laws have stopped piracy either.

Because that's not the purpose of laws. The purpose of laws is to make clear what's right and what's wrong. And to declare appropriate punishment for those, who breach them. That might be several hundred thousands of dollars and a multiple years in jail for those who violate the copyright of others, or provide technologies to others that enable the circumvention of access protections, like anti ad blockers.

Take a look at the site you linked (mobilegeeks.de). They replaced ads with donations

Wrong. They have replaced banner ads with native ads. These are still ads, but now you don't even know you're reading one, because they look like content. And there's no actual content besides them. Are you happy now?

Also for example YouTubers make most money from sponsors or merchandise and not from the ads.

Wrong again. Even the biggest youtubers rely on advertising as their primary income. Sponsoring is also a form of advertisement, btw, so your statement is rather pointless in this regard, too. But the real issue here is that even sponsoring is an option only available for the few biggest ones. However, most youtubers, and especially the many smaller ones, who'd really need the money for their living, can only depend on ad revenues generated by classic banner advertising, which ad blocking takes from them.

So, with ad blocking getting rampant they will have less and less time and incentive to create content, and in the end will just stop producing them. Or they will make their content only available for a monthly subscription free (see YouTube Red).

No free meal, no matter how you try to twist the facts.

People like you always talk about the content creators when in reality at least 60% of the money goes to the advertising company.

Wrong again - but no surprise there. Google for ex. pays out 68% of their revenue to publishers in their AdSense program. But practically all the other networks are using a similar share. Forces of market, demand and supply, you know.

And even if that wouldn't be the case, and "advertising companies" really kept the majority of money (which they don't), it would be still true, that by ad blocking you're depriving content creators of their well-earned rewards. And in this case it would be even more unfair to block the ads, because they'd earn even less for the work they put into creating the content you're consuming.

So, again, your argument just makes no sense, and is completely irrational.

Also a lot of "content" now is pure click-bait or stolen and the only reason for that is ads.

And a lot of content isn't. And because ad blocking does not work selectively only on stolen, but blocks ads even on genuine and original content, it's obviously not a solution to this problem.

Actually, it escalates this problem (too), because with ad blocking getting rampant it's now impossible to earn enough money to create original content (which costs a lot of work and money), and only those entities can stay in business, who are indeed using and re-publishing content (which is cheaper) actually created by others.

So, again, you just brought up another reason why ad blocking is not the solution, but the very reason a problem exists and gets worse.

Internet advertising in it's current form is intolerable

It's not. I know it, because I browse the web without employing any kind of ad blocker. I know how tolerable internet advertising is, because I actually see ads - and you don't know, because you're blocking all of them. Yet, you want to educate me about how intolerable it is. How ridiculous is that?

and there's no incentive for that to change if people don't block ads.

Wrong again. I already explained to you that it's the complete lack of ad blocking and instead getting picky about sites would be the only reason that would change the ad landscape. Because if people would see the ads and would avoid sites that show obtrusive ads and flee to other sites that show less ads, then this would drive the former (ad heavy sites) out of business, and would allow the ad light sites to grow and thus cover their costs with even less ads. Ad blocking on the other side just worsens the problem, and forces publishers to put more ads on their sites and/or make the more obtrusive, just to cover their operational costs.

If let's say half of their users are blocking their ads, then the sites have to show not only those ads to the other half, that covers the cost of serving this other half, but also those ads, that pays for the costs of the blocker half, too. That means that if half of their users block ads, then they have to double the number of ads or double the obtrusiveness of the ads, to generate the same amount of revenue that can keep the site running.

Proof again for ad blocking no being the solution, but the very escalator of the problem.

Unfulfilled wishes are also a major cause for depression which is an enormous problem, in developed nations too.

Yet, you have no problem to inflict this depression on content creators themselves, by depriving them of their well-earned and decent living through blocking the ads that would pay for their work. See? You're, again, making just no sense.

Never had a virus in all the years I've been on the internet

Me neither. Even though I'm browsing thousands of web pages every day - without any ad blocker. I guess I'm doing something wrong. Either that, or malvertising is not actually an issue that would have a real chance to hit even pros, like me, let alone talk about everyday web surfers.

but the computers of relatives who don't use adblockers usually return hundreds of results when using Malwarebytes.

"Results", which are mostly completely innocent cookies, and which can't harm neither them, nor their computers. Or stuff thay they've downloaded voluntarily, not because it was spread to their computers through malvertisement, but which they could have downloaded even then, if they'd have had an ad blocker installed. Like bundled spyware, trojans, and such.

There's even a correlation between countries that have higher rates of malware infections and lower rates of adblock usage.

Too bad you didn't provide a source for this claim. Too bad correlation does not imply causation. Too bad you realize none of that prior to writing down stuff like this.

Your only aim is to spread FUD and push the agenda of the advertising industry.

No. My aim is to educate people, like you, who are rather ignorant about most facts of life, nature and economy, and are really bad at simple logic, too, about the fact that with ad blocking everybody is losing (users, content owners and publishers), and everything is just getting worse. And that circumvention of anti ad blockers might land you in jail. Which, even though obviously now completely forgotten by you, is the topic of this ticket.

[ghost]

I don't even care to respond to your personal attacks. Let me just say that most of those malware results where .exe and .dll files. If you think those are cookies then I won't correct you since you're apparently so well educated. You're incredibly biased, condescending, not interested in accepting the fact that the current advertising system needs to be improved and I don't care to continue this argument. Brings up my original question: What was the point of this "issue"? Obviously to push your agenda and nothing else.

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

Let me just say that most of those malware results where .exe and .dll files.

And how is that proof for

1. that they've gotten there through malvertising, and
2. that they could not have landed there even then if ad blocking would have been employed ?

You're just making unfounded assumptions that only serve the conclusion you want to make in the first place. That's called circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.

You're incredibly biased, condescending, not interested in accepting the fact that the current advertising system sucks

It's not a fact, but something you make up just for the sake of being able to use it as an excuse for ad blocking. And boy, you need excuses badly, because deep inside even you know that ad blocking is wrong in the first place.

Why is it so hard for you to actually do what's right and what would actually solve the problem instead of what's wrong and what just worsens every single problem you've mentioned so far?

Brings up my original question: What was the point of this "issue"?

You already got the answer on your question multiple times. The fact that you still can't remember or comprehend them makes me really question what the point of answering to you is.

[ghost]

Which is proof that they've gotten there through malvertising, or that they could not have landed there even then if ad blocking would have been employed, how?

I never said that's proof. I only presented it to show that adblocking might be the reason that others don't get malware.

you need excuses badly, because deep inside even you know that ad blocking is wrong in the first place.

You think the points I make (annoying ads, behavior tracking, slower page load times) are excuses? How so?

actually solve the problem

Which problem do you mean? I'm solving the problem of advertisers using annoying ads by blocking them.

worsens every single problem you've mentioned so far

Advertisers don't stop tracking and annoying ads because I allow them through.

You already got the answer on you question multiple times.

If you didn't know a GitHub issue queue is not a place to "educate" (manipulate) people but for reporting software bugs.

Interesting also that you simply ignored the link I provided which showed examples of malvertising.

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

I never said that's proof. I only presented it to show that adblocking might be the reason that others don't get malware.

That's exactly what you didn't and can't prove, unless you can prove that the malware got on their computer through ads. Because if it didn't, then obviously an ad blocker wouldn't have saved them from it either.

Btw. I've already explained to you that ads can only be used to distribute the very same kind of malware and the very same way any web page can, and that ad networks are generally far more secure than average web pages. That's another reason why in fact ad blocking is not the determining factor in whether someone will get infected with malware, even if exclude them downloading malware voluntarily.

You think the points I make (annoying ads, behavior tracking, slower page load times) are excuses?

They must be, because they make no sense, and because you can't arrive at those conclusions unless you make (unproven) assumptions that lead up directly to them. If they were not excuses, you wouldn't have to make those false assumptions and the construct of your reasoning would make logically sense and would not be full of contradictions, as it is. I've pointed out at least a dozen contradictions in your reasoning in your last post alone.

Which problem do you mean? I'm solving the problem of advertisers using annoying ads by blocking them.

You do not. That's what I've been explaining. And you not comprehending that doesn't change this at all.

Advertisers don't stop tracking and annoying ads because I allow them through.

They do. I've just explained to you why. Maybe it's really your comprehension that's fault at here...

If you didn't know a GitHub issue queue is not a place to "educate" (manipulate) people but for reporting software bugs.

Wrong. It's a place to report issues with the project - and I just did that. I reported a legal issue here. It was you who turned this into a discussion about something completely else. I merely pointed out the flaws in your reasoning and that you obviously have no clue about the facts, like governing law and such, and that you're being completely off-topic here. So, who was doing wrong here, again? Well, you, of course. And yet, you accuse me of what's been committed actually by you. So typical...

[ghost]

They must be, because they make no sense, and because you can't arrive at those conclusions unless you make (unproven) assumptions that lead up directly to them. If they were not excuses, you wouldn't have to make those false assumptions and the construct of your reasoning would make logically sense and would not be full of contradictions, as it is. I've pointed out at least a dozen contradictions in your reasoning in your last post alone.

What here is unproven? Ads track users. You should know that. Ads are annoying to me. And ads slow down the browser which is just obvious since the additional code consumes more resources than say an adblocker.

You do not. That's what I've been explaining. And you not comprehending that doesn't change facts.

The ads don't get shown to me. That solves the problem for me.

You are thinking the wrong way around. First were the annoying ads and that's why people started using adblockers. Annoying ads were not the result of adblockers. Popups were around long before adblockers. The advertising industry screwed the user not the other way around. Also you don't explain why advertisers would stop harvesting information about users.

It's a place to report issues, and I just did that. I reported a legal issue here.

And here again my question: Why? Which point does reporting it have? Do you think it can be solved and if yes how? If not then why report it? Pushing agenda, yes?

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

What here is unproven? Ads track users. You should know that. Ads are annoying to me. And ads slow down the browser which is just obvious since the additional code consumes more resources than say an adblocker.

None of that changes that ad blocking solves none of these problem - but creates even more. I've explained why. You just need to read it.

The ads don't get shown to me. That solves the problem for me.

Wrong. Ads will still be shown, even to you. They will just use some format in which they can not be blocked or won't even be recognizable as ads. You will still be exposed to ads - but now you won't even know it happens to you.

You are thinking the wrong way around. First were the annoying ads and that's why people started using adblockers.

Which, again, changes nothing about the fact that ad blocking just worsens all the problems with ads, and solves none of them.

Popups were around long before adblockers.

Wrong. Ad blockers were long around before popup ads. That said, again, changes nothing about ad blockers escalating the problems.

Also you don't explain why advertisers would stop harvesting information about users.

They will not - even with ad blocking. Actually, they will have to intensify their information harvesting procedures, just to keep the status quo. That's the point in making, and that keeps flying over your head.

What you obviously still don't get is that ad blockers don't and never can make ads go away. They just

1. force ads to take other shapes and forms, that fly under the radar of ad blocking (like sponsored content, native advertising, fake user reviews, etc)
2. force free websites and services to switch to paid subscription models or go out of business and disappear.

The only thing ad blocking achieves is that

1. now you won't be able to distinguish content from advertisement
2. there will be less content and less services available to you
3. those that are still available will be of worse quality and/or will be available only through paid subscription, not for free

In the end ad blocking gains you nothing, but makes you lose a lot. Both in terms of options and also in productivity. Hell, you will even have to spend more of actual money on services.

And here again my question: Why? Which point does reporting it have?

All the posts that do not have your name in them. Because it's only you who doesn't get that this ticket was not opened to discuss ads or ad blocking, but to point out a possible problem with the legality AAK, because of it being a circumvention of anti ad blocking technologies.

[ghost]

Most of your points are pure lies. Sure adblocking solves my problems. It keeps third-parties and tracking out of my browser which is my goal. It keeps unnecessary code from running and annoying ads out. And I don't mind less "content". Click-bait wouldn't even exist without ads.

Wrong. Ad blockers were long around before popup ads. That said, again, changes nothing about ad blockers escalating the problems.

False. Ethan Zuckerman worked at Tripod.com between 1994 and 1999 where he invented the popup. The first adblocker (Webwasher) came out in 1998. Advertisers were the ones escalating the situation by pushing annoying advertising.

All points that do not involve rebutting your false claims. It's only you who doesn't even get that this ticket is not about ad blocking, but about the circumvention of anti ad blocking technologies. It's only you who keep referring back to ads or ad blocking, which have nothing to do with this ticket. It's only you who keep being off-topic.

What are you talking about? My question was why you reported this legal issue and which solution there could be.

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

Most of your points are pure lies.

If they would be, you could point out at what points they are false. But you can't do that. You'd also need to prove intent. But you can't do that either. The only thing you can do is cry "lies" - just because you don't want them to be true. Which of course, changes nothing about the facts. What you're doing is called wishful thinking, and again, is a logical fallacy. What practically all of your posts purely consist of.

False. Ethan Zuckerman invented the popup between 1994 and 1999. The first adblocker (Webwasher) came out in 1998.

Wrong. Ad blockers were around already prior to the invention of the web itself, in the era of CompuServe, Prodigy and Trintex, in the late '80s.

What are you talking about? My question was why you reported this legal issue

Are you asking me why I'm reporting an issue with AAK in a place where people are supposed to report issues with AAK? Really?

and which solution there could be.

It's not up for me to figure that out.

[ghost]

If they would be, you could point out at what points they are false.

You claimed that adblock doesn't solve my problems which is untrue like I explained. Speaking of logical fallacies: All your posts basically exist of ad hominem but I'm sure you're aware of that.

Wrong. Ad blockers were around already prior to the invention of the web itself, in the era of CompuServe, Prodigy and Trintex, in the late '80s.

What adblockers? Webwasher was the first one.

Are you asking me why I'm reporting an issue with AAK in a place where people are supposed to report issues with AAK? Really?

I'm asking because there's no solution to this issue (if it even is one).

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

I did. You claimed that adblock doesn't solve my problems which is untrue like I explained.

Nope. You not only didn't do that, but you didn't even make an attempt a that. At the extremely rare occasions you tried something like that, you were proven false by facts and logic.

Hell, not only is there no logic and no actual reasoning present in your posts, but with every single of them you only prove that even the most basic facts and conclusions are constantly eluding you. Just look at your last post!

What adblockers? Webwasher was the first one.

You see? That's what I'm talking about. You can't actually reason and bring arguments to bolster your statements. You merely keep repeating the same false statements over and over - obviously thinking that if you do that, they somehow will become true. They won't.

I'm asking because there's no solution to this issue.

How would you know that if you don't even know basic facts about the history of ads and ad blocking, don't understand copyright and DMCA, and obviously have a hard time recognizing that ad blocking and the circumvention of an anti ad blocking mechanism are not the same thing?

And no, you don't actually have to answer that question. It was rhetoric.

[ghost]

Nope. You not only didn't do that, but you didn't even make an attempt a that.

From my earlier post:

"It keeps third-parties and tracking out of my browser which is my goal. It keeps unnecessary code from running and annoying ads out. And I don't mind less "content". Click-bait wouldn't even exist without ads."

You see? That's what I'm talking about. You can't actually reason and bring arguments to bolster your statements. You merely repeat the same false statements - obviously thinking that if you do that, they somehow will become true. They won't.

You simply claimed there were other adblockers. Same thing.

How would you know that if you don't even know basic facts about the history of ads and ad blocking, don't understand copyright and DMCA, and obviously have a hard time recognizing that ad blocking and the circumvention of an anti ad blocking mechanism are not the same thing?

Never did I say they are the same thing. That's what I mean by lies. You also said you don't know what solution there is so why would the information you listed be of help to me to find one if it isn't to you?

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

It keeps third-parties and tracking out of my browser which is my goal.

You don't need to block ads to accomplish that, and an ad blocker doesn't accomplish that either. An ad blocker doesn't block all third-party cookies and doesn't stop all (or even most) forms of tracking.

It's also worth mentioning that tracking is again something that only happens in the interest of users and to make ads less annoying to them. The sole purpose of ads tracking is to discover what kind of stuff the users might be interested in. If an ad server can discover that, then it can show more ads for stuff the user is interested in, and less of stuff he/she is not interested in. This in turn will make the users feel less annoyed, than if he/she'd be bombarded with ads of stuff he/she definitely doesn't want.

This is called targeting, and the more targeted ads are, the more effective they are. Which in turn means that they are more worth to advertisers, so sites have to show less of them to generate the same amount of revenue and cover their operating costs.

So, in the end "tracking" is again something that's in the very interest of every user - because it ensures that they are shown ads for stuff they might like and want to buy, and because they are shown the minimum amount of ads required to cover the costs of running the site.

You simply claimed there were other adblockers. Same thing.

Nope. I can bring you an example: Internet Junkbuster. It has been already published in 1996. By the time Webwasher hit the market, the development of Junkbuster has already stopped.

That alone proves you were wrong. Now, I can't remember the name of the ad blocker that you were able to use with CompuServe, but I've personally seen it back in the early '90s.

Never did I say they are the same thing.

You just kept bringing up ad blocking and the legality of it in this ticket, which is definitely not about ad blocking itself. Which makes it obvious that - as I said - you have a hard time differentiating between the two.

You also said you don't know what solution there is

That's not what I said.

so why would the knowledge you listed be a requirieren to find a solution?

What?

[ghost]

You don't need to block ads to accomplish, and an ad blocker doesn't block all third-party cookies and tracking.

Yes, you need to do that. Another lie. Blocking the third-party servers also causes the ads not to be displayed. And it's not about blocking all third-party tracking but to reduce the number of parties that track you. Also tracking is absolutely not in my interest. Back when I didn't use an adblocker (like 2 years ago) the ads were never relevant for me and all they were doing were collecting information about me with no result. You also don't say anything about the other pros of adblocking I list. Chearry picking like in this whole thread.

Nope. I can bring you an example: Internet Junkbuster. It has been already published in 1996. By the time Webwasher hit the market, the development of Junkbuster has already stopped.

Might be true (you don't provide a source) but adblocking didn't go mainstream until after advertisers went for massively annoying ads.

You just kept bringing up ad blocking and legality of it in this ticket, which is definitely not about ad blocking itself. Which makes it obvious that you have a hard time differentiating between the two.

I brought it up ones and then you started arguing about it making the same mistake as me.

That's not what I said.

No but you said "It's not up for me to figure that out." which either means you have no idea or you simply don't want to think about it which makes no sense since you actually seem interested in this. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted it.

What?

Basically you're claiming that I don't know about certain things and that's why I can't make a judgement about this topic. Though you have that knowledge but can't do it either so the knowledge seems to be irrelevant for making the judgement. So why bring it up?

[gnits]

@IDKwhattoputhere

Yes, you need to do that.

No you don't. Again, it seems, you have no clue what's the difference between "tracking", "cookies" and "ads". If you would know, you wouldn't claim what you just did.

And it's not about blocking all third-party tracking but to reduce it.

It's not. If that would be the primary purpose of an ad blocker, then it would not be called ad blocker and wouldn't block ads. It would be called tracking protection, which btw comes by now built-in into practically all browsers. And which, by itself, doesn't necessarily block ads.

Ad blocking is not about reducing tracking - it's about blocking ads. Not that reducing tracking per se would make sense (I've explained above why), or that it would make blocking less wrong, and wouldn't just worsen the ad problem (again, already explained why). Just saying.

Also tracking is absolutely not in my interest. Back when I didn't use an adblocker (like 2 years ago) the ads were never relevant for me

That, I don't believe you. You could have just as well claimed that 2+2 = 5 - it would have made just as much sense. None. But even if it would be true (that no "relevant" ads were shown to you), it wouldn't matter. It would not change the facts that ad blocking just escalates the all the problems with ads you keep complaining about, and that circumvention of anti ad blocking technologies is most likely illegal.

and all they were doing were collecting information about me with no result.

So, if they did that, then what? Did you kill somebody? Did you steal stuff? Did you abuse children? What did you have to hide you didn't want others to know? Not that the ad companies would learn about that stuff by ad tracking, or that even if they'd know, they'd care about - because the only thing they're interested in is showing more relevant ads to you. Just asking. On the other side, nothing beats acute paranoia.

I brought it up ones and then you started arguing about it making the same mistake as me.

So you were the one bringing it up and then you were questioning me why I brought it up. Smart of you. As always.

No but you said "It's not up for me to figure that out." which either means you have no idea or you simply don't want to think about it

You've a serious problem with reading comprehension. I suggest you look up what "it's not up for me" actually means.

Basically you're claiming that I don't know about certain things and that's why I can't make a judgement about this topic.

Basically, that's what I'm saying.

Anyway, it seems you really don't posses neither the knowledge, nor even just the will to address (or even just understand) the issue brought up in this ticket, which is the legality of AAK. And all you is keep arguing about something completely different. I think it makes no point for me to keep participating in that, regardless of you being completely wrong on practically all issues you're bringing up, because it obviously takes us nowhere, and it surely does not bring us any closer to a solution of the issue presented.

[ghost]

You're just being condescending, also not even trying to correct me but simply saying "you have no clue". You're being the ignorant one by thinking that adblockers are the problem and not the greed of advertisers and their complete lack of respect for the user (which you greatly presented yourself btw). Your kind of attitude is what makes adblock usage grow but of course you wouldn't understand that and you are going to claim it's false because you don't agree with it. But guess what? It won't change anything about growing adblock usage. You're simply trying to manipulate and push your bias and agenda so I'm going to abandon this thread. Either produce content that's worth whitelisting or get a real job that doesn't consist of manipulating and abusing people and stop trying to guilt-trip users into allowing your shitty ads.

[iamunknown2]

@gnits, now tell me if someone would get in trouble for writing a browser that did not interpret inline JS (which would circumvent some anti-adblock) but also came with a adblocker?