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?

[Lazza]

1. Adblock blockers employed by sites are a form or copy protection / digital rights management (DRM) / access control software.

If you start with a false premise, you can prove anything. This is Mathematical logic 101.

[gnits]

@Lazza Indeed. Also, not wanting to accept a fact doesn't make it less of a fact.

[Lazza]

Adblock blockers are code which is a form of content. Preventing your browser from downloading a piece of content or from running a piece of code does not constitute copyright violation.

This applies in any sane country in the world. It might be that in the USA you are actually considered a thief because you do not download a file or you do not run a program, but I highly doubt that.

[gnits]

@Lazza This ticket is not about the legality of ad blocking, but about the legality of aak and the circumvention of anti ad blockers. Which is a completely different issue than copyright itself per se.

I'm not saying you're right with what you're saying. Just that the legality of ad blocking is completely orthogonal to the legality of aak and similar software. In every country.

[Lazza]

The prevention of anti ad blockers works the same way. You use a list of filters that block contents from being loaded. We might as well put ads and anti ad-blockers in the same "unwanted elements" category.

If I own a computer I get to decide which software can run on it or what content I want to actually download. I would say that the usage of the "circumvention" word itself should be questioned.

[iamunknown2]

@Lazza Devil's advocate here, but you could apply the same logic to DRM and say that since it is your PC, you should have the right to execute whatever commands (be it anti-DRM scripts) you please.

[Lazza]

I am sorry because I'm not a native speaker and I might not be expressing what I am saying in the clearest way.

I am not trying to say that you can execute whatever you want. DDOS is still illegal even if you run the attack from your PC. What I am saying is that nobody can force you to download or execute anything.

You are free NOT to run what you don't want. When I visit a website, the site says "please run this piece of JS as well". I might comply or not, this is completely my choice.

[iamunknown2]

@Lazza Still devil's advocate, but couldn't you technically be exercising your right to NOT run what you don't want by automating the process of ignoring the execution of DRM code?

[Lazza]

@iamunknown2 well, if you are able to do that and still access content (which is highly unlikely) then sure. But in the case of DRM, usually there is some kind of encryption and if you don't run the DRM code you cannot access your content.

Besides, DRM is the most stupid thing ever since copyright law already exists in basically any jurisdiction in the world. The DRM just adds additional, unlawful extra restrictions that limit your rights (i.e. performing a privately owned backup copy of the contents you bought a license for, e.g. by buying a blu-ray disk).

As a matter of fact, there are many sane countries where this is not a problem at all. Even in the US, a ruling stated that:

The act of infringement underlying the inducement claim, however, is not the removal of DRM protection. Rather, it is the copying and distribution of ebooks to others after such protection has been removed.

Source

Anyway, sorry for going a bit off topic. We were talking about blocking PUP (Potentially Unwanted Programs) and I am quite astonished to see that in 2016 we still want to discuss if blocking this kind of adware/malware/whatever should be permitted or not.

[ghost]

I think we're forgetting the point here. This block list exists because of adblock circumvention in the first place by providers who believe they're entitled to force ads upon the user. This circumvention list exists because providers circumvent browser security (Adblockers) to coerce/force users into unblocking their site.

Not only that, this list isn't a "circumvention"; it adds configuration to tools like ublock. Does this mean that disabling tracking by using disconnect is "circumventing"? No.

[tallus]

The DMCA contains provisions allowing circumvention for the purposes of protecting personal privacy.

From the US Copyright Office Summary of the DMCA:

Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumvention when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activities of a natural person.

Text frrom the DMCA itself: Section 1201: (i) Protection of Personally Identifying Information.— (1)Circumvention permitted.—Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, if— (A) the technological measure, or the work it protects, contains the capability of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected; (B) in the normal course of its operation, the technological measure, or the work it protects, collects or disseminates personally identifying information about the person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, without providing conspicuous notice of such collection or dissemination to such person, and without providing such person with the capability to prevent or restrict such collection or dissemination; (C) the act of circumvention has the sole effect of identifying and disabling the capability described in subparagraph (A), and has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work; and (D) the act of circumvention is carried out solely for the purpose of preventing the collection or dissemination of personally identifying information about a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, and is not in violation of any other law. (2)Inapplicability to certain technological measures.— This subsection does not apply to a technological measure, or a work it protects, that does not collect or disseminate personally identifying information and that is disclosed to a user as not having or using such capability.

[iamunknown2]

@tallus Case closed then...

[gnits]

@tallus @iamunknown2 An anti ad blocker obviously does not collect or disseminate personally identifying information - because it's not needed. An anti ad-blocker merely checks whether the user/browser is blocking ads, and if they do, it blocks access to the content. That does not involve neither collection, nor dissemination of any kind of personally identifying information - even if the latter is interpreted in the broadest possible way.

Also, the DMCA explicitly states that the circumvention would be exempt from the prohibition only as long as "the act of circumvention has the sole effect of identifying and disabling the capability described in subparagraph (A), and has no other effect on the ability of any person to gain access to any work".

In layman terms: it would be only legal to "disable" those parts of the access protection that collect personally identifiable information - but even this exemption does not make it legal to circumvent the access protection itself.

So, no, this exemption DEFINITELY does not apply to the circumvention of anti ad blockers, and does not exempt aak from the DMCA either.

[Lazza]

First of all, you are abusing the term "circumvention" again. You are not breaking into someone else's computer bypassing a login, you are preventing undesired malicious software from running on your computer.

Secondly, most ad networks make heavy use of third party cookies, therefore they are used essentially to collect information about users. The sentence you have cited also requires that the "measures" be explicitly reported as not collecting PII.

[gnits]

@Lazza You're obviously confusing ad blocking with anti ad blocking circumvention. What you said might apply to ad blocking itself, but does not apply to anti ad blocking. You're talking about the former. But this ticket and the discussion herein is about the latter.

[Lazza]

I am talking about anti ad blockers blocking!

Anti adblockers are unwanted applications which we therefore prevent from running. If this is circumvention (it isn't, but bear with me), then those scripts themselves would be circumventing our ability to visit websites in the first place.

Users have the right to protect themselves from unwanted software or scripts and to block them. That's what anti-virus software is all about and it's quite an old (and proven) concept.

[gnits]

@Lazza That's not what the law says. You not comprehending that doesn't make it any less a fact.

You're also being hypocrite by invoking your - supposedly existing - right to have total control over what runs on your computer and what doesn't, in arguing for a technology, that denies essentially the same right to other people (ie. the publishers). Because, you know, in the end by circumventing their anti ad blockers you deny them their right to control who can and can't access their computers (servers).

That's exactly what anti-circumvention prohibitions (like that in the DMCA) make clear. That your right to control what happens with your stuff doesn't precede the very same right of others (publishers') to control what happens to their stuff (servers, content, etc).

[Lazza]

by invoking your - supposedly existing - right to have total control over what runs on your computer and what doesn't

It's not supposedly existing, it exists and it is obvious.

that denies essentially the same right to other people (ie. the publishers)

We are not forcing any software to run on the publishers' servers. Of course we don't have admin rights on their machines.

by circumventing their anti ad blockers you deny them their right to control who can and can't access their computers (servers)

Here we go with abusing the "circumvention" meaning again. Do you also happen to eat a cheeseburger and call it a burrito?

Publishers have mean of blocking access to their contents, namely they own the HTTP servers and can decide which users to return a 403 Forbidden error code, for example. If these guys want to run a piece of malware JS inside my browser, such a browser already has downloaded all the contents and that means the website returned a 200 Ok status code (which is an authorization to access the HTML source code of the page).

What about browsers without JS? Security is not done client side. If the client refuses to run some JS (because it hasn't got any obligation to do so) you cannot invoke copyright violation. Not related to DMCA at all.

[gnits]

@Lazza Do you have an actual argument to bring forward? Or just this?

Edit: I see that after I replied to you, you deleted your pointless and vulgar rant and replaced it with a completely different text, that at least seems to contain at least some arguments. Of course your assumptions are statements are still pointless and wrong - but the point is not that. But that you replaced your rant with a completely different text, without even just hinting at that fact. How typical of you.

[QueenOfStars]

For the love of web, will you stop feeding the troll already? It's been almost two months! We get it; he wants to make money out of ads. Boohoo.

MOVE. ON. WITH. YOUR. LIVES.

[Lazza]

@QueenOfStars gosh, you are right. For a while I believed I was discussing with a reasonable person. I was terribly wrong. He even intentionally edited his text after I replied to him, then accused me of hiding something. A troll in every possible way.

[Giwayume]

Wow. Is this topic still open just for laughs?

[gnits]

@reek Just a heads up: Eyeo, the company behind Adblock Plus and the maintainers of EasyList blocklist are being investigated on grounds of mass copyright violation and deception of the courts: http://www.golem.de/news/adblock-plus-staatsanwaltschaft-durchsucht-werbeblocker-anbieter-eyeo-1701-125866.html

[Lazza]

Adblock Plus wins its 6th court case, brought by Der Spiegel

Eyeo GmbH has beaten back German court cases seeking to shut down its business.

JOE MULLIN - 11/29/2016, 9:05 PM

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/adblock-plus-wins-its-6th-court-case-brought-by-der-spiegel/

[gnits]

@Lazza Yeah, that's one of the cases where there are suspected to have deceived the courts (perjury), which in turn could be the very reason why they "won" in first instance (verdicts are not final in any of the cases). That said that court case is completely irrelevant here anyway, as it wasn't even about the legality of the circumvention of ad blockers in the first case. The current investigation I've referred to is.

[Zaldor]

Is it legal to look away from the TV when commercials come during your favourite TV show? Or even change channel when that happens, is it legal to cut out adverts from newspapers?

[hackerrester]

@gnits To find your answer, get a law degree and pass the bat exam in civil and criminal. Try Aak and other anti-adblockers in local courts based on your argument. Then you will get your answer.

[gnits]

Good news everyone! (Well, not so much for AAK.) Even the maintainers of EasyList seem to agree that circumvention of anti ad-blocking mechanisms is a violation of the DMCA - as they honored a removal request that's based on that exact argument, without filing a counter-notice.

https://github.com/easylist/easylist/commit/a4d380ad1a3b33a0fab679a1a8c5a791321622b3#commitcomment-23608691

It seems that my original question about the (il)legality of AAK has been answered. Thanks for everyone who chimed in on the conversation.

[QueenOfStars]

@gnits, thanks for the heads up, I will add "||functionalclam.com^$third-party" to my personal block rules immediately.

troll.

[Lazza]

Time to install this list as well: https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock

[uBlock-user]

Nobody answered your question, as we do not believe in feeding trolls such as you. But feel free to live in denial, ultimately only the user decides what loads and what doesn't in his/her browser, DMCA can go fuck itself. Thanks for the entertainment.

[iamunknown2]

Actually, I agree with Tanath in the other page; we're not circumventing their access controls, since they give us the whole site and we block parts of it. They're circumventing our access controls.