Hacker News Reader

Comment by ameshkov | Hacker News Reader

This is my article from 2017.

Here's a short update on what happened since then:

1. DMCA takedowns did not destroy ad blocking (thank god), but there were a couple more times when it was tried, nothing huge though.

2. Streisand effect is a thing and the domain in question was blocked by everyone and everywhere. There was even a special filter list and later a browser extension which only purpose was to block such domains. It got some traction but later got abandoned: https://github.com/paulgb/BarbBlock. If something like that happens again I am pretty sure it can be revived very quickly.

3. The corporations still try different angles to prohibit ad blocking. The last example I know about is something like this: Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.

View on HN

> So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.

That seems absurd. I just reject their request to fetch some _additional_ information, I don't modify the "text of their request" as such. If that breaks their sites (as it usually does), that's their problem - not mine.

I will entertain their terms so long as they agree to a contract stipulating terms for executing code on my computer.

This! it is your machine at the end of the day. we should have an option not to use a company or their services which they are forcing on us.

I had a neighbor who was sent an invoice, he had cancelled his internet connection 3 months ago and was later told they need a cancellation request in writing. so he sent an equivalent invoice to them asking for rent for their modem which was consuming place in his house. he did not have to pay in the end.

This sounds clever, but it's actually diametrically opposed to the protocol model. The problem is companies push unilateral contracts of adhesion that you're "free" to take or leave. So if the contract regime ruled computer interactions (as "remote attestation" is poised to do) then you'd find yourself at the pointy end of a new stick.

It's the same reason US privacy regulation is doomed to failure unless it frames consent the same way the GDPR did. Not merely as something that is given once (and then vectoralized/sold), but rather something that needs to be given on an ongoing basis and can be withdrawn at any time.

Right. If I request they snail mail me a copy of some document, they are free to reject the request. However, if they send me the document, I am free to tear off pieces or color on it with crayons.

There are edge cases to that, Mostly if the document was government related (Money, Official Documents)

And those do not fall under copyright.

Excellent point. I'd say there are edge cases to viewing a website too, but the claiming the general case falls under some sort of copyright-adjacent protection is bunk.

A bit more nuanced: not loading in the ad on a news site is akin to ripping out and throwing away the subscription card in the magazine. The contents of each might be subject to copyright, but that doesn't invalidate my right to separate them once delivered to me.

That's a good argument. However, good adblockers also modify the page (for e.g. some websites don't render at all if the ad is not fetched and displayed, or to ensure the webpage shows properly when trackers and advertisements are blocked). We can still argue fair use, as websites can have malwares and we have the right to protect ourselves from it.

And even if you did modify it, that's still not a copyright problem. It only becomes one when you distribute the modified version. Modifying something or circulating instructions on how to modify something are completely legal (unless you run into anti-hacking laws).

No, modifying a copyrighted work still requires permission from the copyrighted holder since you are creating a derivative work.

So I can't modify a book I purchased (add comments, strike out words etc)?

No. I strongly doubt you will be sued for doing it though.

No it doesn't. Base copyright is not an EULA, it doesn't govern how someone legally in possession of a copy uses that copy. By your argument every single person in history with a book who made notes in the margin or crossed words or the like is a copyright infringer. Worse if they subsequently sold that book at a used book sale.

It prevents people from creating derivative works. To quote US law.

"A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”."

> Axel Springer claimed that the web page and all its content (including subrequest) and ads is subject to copyright law. So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright.

Suppose it's true and that they are copyright holders for all these ads (they are not). Now, when the publisher gets a newspaper out, the content is just as they wanted. But when I take that newspaper home and decide to tear out a page or whatever fragment of it, it's none of their business. The filtering is being done locally, EasyList is not publishing an adless version of their websites.

Thanks for the update. Do you have any insight into wether a copyright claim like the one used by Axel Springer stands on valid legal ground (wether in Germany or elsewhere)?

I only talked with the layer of the defending side. They say that this is a nonsense, but with such a complex matter you can never be absolutely sure.

It might actually be a problem for shared service that modifies a page outside your home, but a personal ad-blocker is equivalent to the scissors you used to clip the ads out of a magazine.

Which is a great analogy that shows how difficult the argument is to decide.

If you take a scissor to a reproduction of a piece of art you have not created yourself (and for which the protection timeframe has not ended yet), create snippets, and rearrange them, this can be considered an Urheberrecht violation[1]. No one would consider doing the same to a newspaper the same.

[1] The distinction here is relevant: German copyright is not like US copyright - it can't be sold away, you can only license out individual derived rights, and it also allows for protection against "abuse of a work", e.g. doing something with it the original creator disapproves of[2]. If that always applies to the removal of ads has not been decided in a final decision.

[2] "The author has the right to prohibit any distortion or other interference with his work that is likely to jeopardize his legitimate intellectual or personal interests in the work." Art 14 UrhG

Cutting the magazine you own is not the same tho

Reminds me of a recent discovery on my device. I found out it's not possible for me to take screenshots on Netflix or Prime Video unless I go into Chrome settings and turn off hardware acceleration. It turns out that newer displays have DRM baked into them that prevents you from taking screenshots of your own freaking screen. I feel stupid for never having known that, but more importantly completely violated. This is my machine, and I choose what do on it, and how did I never know about this before? I feel the same way about sites that turn off right-click or text copying.

In answer, I should probably invoke accessibility laws, asserting that ads make my blood pressure rise and induce vomiting.

Also, since parodies have been deemed fair use since about forever, what I’m reading is fine parodies, which are exactly the originals except they don’t have ads.

But that's all obvious nonsense.

Perhaps. But "making sense" is generally not a priority for the law. And taking such a stance might be pretty useful, on the PR/politics side...

Making sense is usually a priority for the judges that run the court cases that define what the law is/means.

Making sense is a high priority for legal arguments. You may be unfamiliar with the context in which things are meant to make sense though.

You don't even need to make up a reason. I'm visually impaired in a way that has substantial cortical visual impairment, issues with movement, and issues with crowding. Ads are genuinely an accessibility problem for me and people like me.

I don't modify the page, I just ban the browser to fetch some domains. Try banning hosts file usage, Axel Springer.

Also, good luck with that clause against Links, Lynx and Dillo.

It's German law being discussed. Germany doesn't have a fair use element to their copyright law, just some specific exemptions. Parody isn't one of them.

This isn't a fair use issue. It's a matter of property rights. If they don't want people choosing what code executes on their computer they need to abandon open protocols designed to permit that.

> just some specific exemptions. Parody isn't one of them.

Isn't it? https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__51a.html

> subject to copyright law.

This exact thing happened with Nintendo decades ago, and it turned out to be a nothing burger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com