DMCA removes domain from popular adblocking lists - adblocker circumvention tactic - GoFuckYourself.com

Bladewire · 08-13-2017, 11:52 AM

A new tactic to circumvent adblockers.

A good read on the topic of adblockers potentially violating DMCA can be found here.

-----

DMCA removes domain from popular adblocking list

Easylist is a popular adblocking list that is used by browser extensions to block advertisement on websites visited in the browser.

As the name suggests already, EasyList is just a list of domain names that websites are blocked from making connections to. So, instead of contacting an ad server to download an ad from it, the connection is blocked.

EasyList is hosted on GitHub, and as such all of the lists that are maintained by the project are accessible by anyone.

A recent commit to the list saw the removal of a domain from it. The reason given was "removed due to DMCA takedown request", and the line in question that was removed was ||functionalclam.com^$third-party.

The commit did not reveal more information, but a blog post on Adguard shed some light on the issue. According to the article there, the domain was added 25 days ago to Easylist.

Bladewire · 08-13-2017, 03:31 PM

Bump for business thread

Barry-xlovecam · 08-13-2017, 04:39 PM

That is really a reach. That instance seems to be about the circumvention of an "ad" used to block access to paywall protected content.
That 'ad' was not really an ad -- for that reason it was removed uncontested.

There are civil penalties in the DMCA Act itself of making and filing a false DMCA claim also. DMCA's purpose it to protect against copyright infringement.

If it DOES NOT walk like a duck it is not a duck.

Ad blocking is not copyright infringement or a trade dress infringement tort.

Taking ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) into a contrarian view to Justice Scalia's context in his dissent; The user "controls the buttons on his internet browser (TV)" and I would be very leery of the DMCA approach as a waste of time.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11...c-v-aereo-inc/

Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC (C.D. Cal. January 12, 2015) might also be instructional

Not legal advice -- just my opinionated business advice ;)

Paul Markham · 08-14-2017, 01:57 AM

Why do you want more ads?

Bladewire · 08-14-2017, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Why do you want more ads?

You're not getting the big picture Paul.

It's about the browser and/or plugins censoring what you publish. It's about Google limiting it's ad competition, because publishers will be forced to use Google ads and giving Google a cut, instead of serving their own ads.

MedCash_Miller · 08-15-2017, 08:04 AM

very interesting, thanks for sharing

08-13-2017, 11:52 AM	#1
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,232	DMCA removes domain from popular adblocking lists - adblocker circumvention tactic A new tactic to circumvent adblockers. A good read on the topic of adblockers potentially violating DMCA can be found here. ----- DMCA removes domain from popular adblocking list Easylist is a popular adblocking list that is used by browser extensions to block advertisement on websites visited in the browser. As the name suggests already, EasyList is just a list of domain names that websites are blocked from making connections to. So, instead of contacting an ad server to download an ad from it, the connection is blocked. EasyList is hosted on GitHub, and as such all of the lists that are maintained by the project are accessible by anyone. A recent commit to the list saw the removal of a domain from it. The reason given was "removed due to DMCA takedown request", and the line in question that was removed was \|\|functionalclam.com^$third-party. The commit did not reveal more information, but a blog post on Adguard shed some light on the issue. According to the article there, the domain was added 25 days ago to Easylist.

08-13-2017, 03:31 PM	#2
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,232	Bump for business thread __________________ Skype: CallTomNow

08-14-2017, 01:57 AM	#4
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Why do you want more ads? __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

08-15-2017, 08:04 AM	#6
MedCash_Miller Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 263	very interesting, thanks for sharing __________________ Chris Miller [email protected] skype: Chris Miller Medcash

08-13-2017, 04:39 PM	#3
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	That is really a reach. That instance seems to be about the circumvention of an "ad" used to block access to paywall protected content. That 'ad' was not really an ad -- for that reason it was removed uncontested. There are civil penalties in the DMCA Act itself of making and filing a false DMCA claim also. DMCA's purpose it to protect against copyright infringement. If it DOES NOT walk like a duck it is not a duck. Ad blocking is not copyright infringement or a trade dress infringement tort. Taking ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014) into a contrarian view to Justice Scalia's context in his dissent; The user "controls the buttons on his internet browser (TV)" and I would be very leery of the DMCA approach as a waste of time. https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/11...c-v-aereo-inc/ Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC (C.D. Cal. January 12, 2015) might also be instructional Not legal advice -- just my opinionated business advice ;)