DMCA Used to Remove Ad Server URL from Blocklist

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
It appears that takedown requests are now being used to get around ad blocking: commits associated with a popular filters list, EasyList, reveal that an ad server has been unblocked due to a DMCA. The complainants, anti-adblocking outfit Admiral, are arguing that ads themselves are “copyrighted content,” the interference of which represents a breach of copyright law.

...we have the intriguing prospect of a startup attempting to protect its business model by using a novel interpretation of copyright law to have a domain name removed from a list. How this will pan out is unclear but a notice recently published on Functionalclam.com suggests the route the company wishes to take. “This domain is used by digital publishers to control access to copyrighted content in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and understand how visitors are accessing their copyrighted content,” the notice begins.
 
If I don't want my system processing code that is a common source of malware and system compromises then no act of law is going to make me. Unless, of course, IT becomes a universal right that must be provided at a moments notice due to government demand that I compromise my system with these ads. Oh, and be liable for any lost work and/or content.

Edit: I should mention that I am a Patreon backer before the obvious backlash happens. I would much rather pay for service than rely on a method that is a security risk.
 
Last edited:
Here is a message to all of the advertisers...
I have no problem with ads, however I do have a problem with malware. If and when you clean up your damn act and stop trying to infect my machine every chance you get, I will then unblock the ads. It's really simple. Clean up your act or I and others like me will continue to block your ads. Got it?
 
This kind of like saying we're required to view ads because they're copyrighted. We're not allowed to not view them because of ©? Every movie now has to be seen all citizens because we can't not watch it because it's ©.
 
Publishers have lost $13.468 billion this year alone due to adblock... man oh man that puts a gigantic smile on my face.

So lets get down to the brass tacks though, how much have the "intermediate" guys, the ones who sell the ads, lost this year due to adblock? 4-5 times that amount? That would make me happier still.
 
This kind of like saying we're required to view ads because they're copyrighted. We're not allowed to not view them because of ©? Every movie now has to be seen all citizens because we can't not watch it because it's ©.

That's kinda where my mind went with this. How in the holy hell can they declare that I'm infringing on their property by not consuming it?? This has to be one of the most warped, perverted interpretations of law I have ever witnessed. What a fucking shitshow our legal system has become...
 
What crap legal tactic is this. We copyright our advertisements so if you interfere with us shoving it down someones throat through their browser, we will make you pay DMCA penalties. What a bunch of BS. If ad content delivery takes this track I'll begin blocking and/ or redirect their BS domain names / IP's on the host file or to the localhost. Good luck to them trying to get around that.
 
Prediction: In the future, Windows 10 will be updated with an EULA modification that adds a new restriction that states that you will not be allowed to block any ads. Oh, and Windows 10 will be free.
 
Last edited:
There's not a facepalm image large enough to convey my thoughts on this.



That's kinda where my mind went with this. How in the holy hell can they declare that I'm infringing on their property by not consuming it?? This has to be one of the most warped, perverted interpretations of law I have ever witnessed. What a fucking shitshow our legal system has become...

I'm thinking maybe something is getting lost in translation via the media. Maybe they're claiming that accessing a site where you've blocked advertisements is a violation of copyright because the other content you're viewing is tied to the advertisements. It's still a leap in legal logic, but it at least makes more sense.

Example:
CNN article content is copyrighted with the adverts in place, by removing just the adverts you are violating the copyright via some weird DMCA clause (their claim, not mine) saying you can't modify the content (?).


Now we just need an adblock buster buster, it can be another list that takes Admiral clients and just bans them outright so their pages don't load.
 
Last edited:
So we are now going to have to "pirate" blocklists ? lol

I feel for the quality sites that rely on ad revenue like [H]... I have no issue white listing sites, and using patreon to support the best of the best. [H] ads have always been on msg and not of the evil variety... although I will say I have lost respect for some sites I won't mention the last few years with the low quality of some of the ads. I find I just leave my blocker on for a lot of sites these days that I do read quite often, every time I have felt guilty enough to whitelist them, they end up back on my no no list. You can't even trust otherwise good sites anymore which really sucks. (again not [H] never had any issue leaving the ads on here)

I am going to bet any advertisers using services of an anti-blocking company are exactly the type of companies that have driven people to the blockers.

I doubt this gets very far anyway the majority of the lists are compiled and published under gnu or like licences. I doubt this could get much further then BS notices.
 
I feel for the quality sites that rely on ad revenue like [H]... I have no issue white listing sites,
I am sorry but [H]'s ads are a prime example to get and use some sort of adblock. The huge headers of bullshit at the top of every forum need to go. If they don't I will.
 
I am sorry but [H]'s ads are a prime example to get and use some sort of adblock. The huge headers of bullshit at the top of every forum need to go. If they don't I will.

Well I admit I was thinking more about the main page. Ya ok the placement of the forum ads is pretty terrible. Still content wise at least I haven't seen anything objectionable or anything myself.
 
I am sorry but [H]'s ads are a prime example to get and use some sort of adblock. The huge headers of bullshit at the top of every forum need to go. If they don't I will.
go click on some Facebook postings and see what bad ads are. H are not that bad at all vs a lot of sites. Just sub to h and block the ads if they bug you that much or don't let the door hit you on your way out.
 
Example:
CNN article content is copyrighted with the adverts in place, by removing just the adverts you are violating the copyright via some weird DMCA clause (their claim, not mine) saying you can't modify the content (?).
Yeah sure I'll buy this, except they are sending code, my computer reads the code just fine, just the way it displays it is up to the software on my side of things. This would be no different than if I used Lynx as a web browser.
 
Very easy to add:

Hosts file; 127.0.0.1 functionalclam.com
Ad block plus, just create a custom filter and insert: ||functionalclam.com^$third-party

There's a copy-paste for everyone. I did both. EDIT: Fixed my shame, thanks EchoWars.
 
Last edited:
how do they quantify that they lost 13 billion dollars?

is it like the myth of the "lost sale"?
I'm betting that includes the full 'hollywood accounting' price for the ads, all the guaranteed sales that every view would have generated, all the increased revenue the extra staff they would have hired could have generated, the money they could have made from selling the tracking data the ads would have generated and a whole load more.
 
If ad supplying software *cough* google *cough* did a better job of not letting malware or browser take overs from happening I'd have no reason to block.

Other wise I'll continue to block (white list [H]) ads since it's quite literally the best malware protection out there.
 
Does this ad company advertise through platforms with a pay per click cost? Maybe time to click those ads and abandon the page right after? Maybe their costs skyrockets with no tangible return?
 
Does this ad company advertise through platforms with a pay per click cost? Maybe time to click those ads and abandon the page right after? Maybe their costs skyrockets with no tangible return?
Those days are over. These days you get paid based off how many ad deliveries you have and how popular your site is.
 
I'll be happy to view their $13 billion in ads if they pay for the cost of my internet.

People aren't opposed to normal ads in a fixed space that doesn't distract from the page you're viewing. What people hate is when the page is 75% ads - videos, animations, and other crap we can't turn off, disable from auto-playing, or otherwise view what is supposed to be someone's content since the ads make it hideously confusing. Some of the worst I see are ads posing as news stories on CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.
 
The thing about ads is that even though I often don't reflect over them I still have to use an adblocker, because I refuse to visit my favorite news sites and then get a full page ad that I have to click through to get to the site. I used to make a note of which company paid for that ad and simply wow to never buy anything from that company ever. The list grew very long. Then I added adblocker. the problem is that I would love to have an adblocker that ONLY prevented full page and pop-up ads, I don't mind those fringes ads. I hardly notice them.
 
Year 2430 A.D. - Guy watching sports goes to get a beer during a commercial break. Door bell rings... it is the FBI. "Sir, your set-top box has reported absence of eye contact during a recent commercial break. Those ads are "copyrighted content," the interference of which represents a breach of copyright law. You have the right to remain silent......"

eyesopen.jpg


How can they actually force someone against their will to watch an advert and hope to still win said individual as their future customer? Marketing is all about finding new ways to get to your potential consumer base through positive interaction. But hey, why be creative (or bloody positive) when you can use court orders to force the public to plough through your shit whether they want to or not.

If I had a website of my own with ads on it, I would put a button on every page that says [Ads off]. You gotta click it every time you visit the site on every page, but when you do, the ads are hidden and you get clean content. Win-win. Choice belongs to the customer, you internet marketing idiots.
 
I think that this isn't legal nor would it hold up in court. But I think it was a great move on their part to pull this off. At least temporarily they will get tons more money from advertisers as they will claim they are the only agency getting past adblock. This is a case of a pretty far out interpretation of the law. The other question is do adblockers have money to fight this in court? Because it's most likely a case of them removing the site simply because they are not funded or willing to fight it out in court even if they are confident they will win.

Also I think that now that google is implementing a built in adblocker, we are going to start to see a new creative way that advertisers can get around this. This is just turning into an arms race and the advertisers will always be ahead due to the money. Maybe there will just be plugins that automatically put all the content onto the native servers of the website serving the ads instead of all this cross site scripting. Either that or websites themselves will starting hosting the important content right on the adservers so if you block the adservers you effectively block all the content you want.

My point is that there is no way to win this war, adblocking is actually something that probably works better when its just a niche of computer enthusiasts and over caring people who are constantly fighting to do it, and the advertisers ignore it as being a small portion of the population. I liken it to fighting the war on cheaters in video games, as of yet no one has taken the steps needed to really bite into cheating and maybe no one ever will.
 
Last edited:
Just like to point out that the amount is actually $13.5 Trillion not Billion. Just wondering which section of the economy that'll come from.
Reminds me of when the RIAA tried claiming Limewire etc. had cost them Trillions of dollars. :D

Edit. Tpying is hrad.
 
Just like to point out that the amount is actually $13.5 Trillion not Billion. Just wondering which section of the economy that'll come from.
Reminds me of when the RIAA tried claiming Limewire etc. had cost them Trillions of dollars. :D

Edit. Tpying is hrad.

Pretty sure it's $13 Billion, 468 Million, 984 Thousand, 515.

I'm honestly not a big fan of the monetization of the internet. However, I've never blocked ads because the limited number of sites I go to don't really scream 'malware'.

Thanks to these people I'm definitely considering an ad blocker now. : |
 
I would think that Easylist is a group's opinion of what domains should blocked from showing ads and is therefore protected by the First Amendment right of expression. That the list is coincidentally used by users of a third party program to block certain websites isn't the Easylist author's problem.

Also in play is the easylist.to domain where Easylist is listed. Does the DMCA even apply to a list published on a website in a non-US TL domain?
 
Back
Top