DMCA Used to Remove Ad Server URL from Blocklist

That's stretching further than a team of Chinese contortionists.

You can't edit copyrighted content and then redeliver it. Neither Easylist or adblock programs do this though.
 
I have no issues with any ads here. They are related to computer enthusiasts products and they don't screw up my computer. While I don't pay Patreon, I do make it a habit to click through and see what the advertisers are trying to sell.;)
 
necrosis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just curious to know, What is your ideal Ad experience?
 
SolarisGuru said:
No good can come of this.
Click to expand...
Actually, when they get slapped down in federal court for trying to stretch DMCA well beyond its actual purpose it will be a good thing. Sucks to be the guy to litigate it, but the outcome is all but a foregone conclusion.

Oh, and hosts file blocking works great too.
 
This can be torn to pieces in any court of law. You're not changing the content at the source you're changing it locally for your own benefit. This is the same as newspaper clippings, you cut out the part that you're interested in and throw away the rest.
 
CVNet1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've been using hosts/localhosts blocks for years. Let them try and stop me!
 
I only use ad blockers for the reason ads are not monitored by anyone. Some ads have virus's in them and malware. I have seen ads that are rasonware as well. I don't mind safe ads but if the advertising company does not monitor the ads at all them they should not be any in the first place.
 
"Pretty sure it's $13 Billion, 468 Million, 984 Thousand, 515."

That'll teach me to have non food breakfast. :D

Still a ridiculous figure tho.
 
This just makes me install more ad blocking software. WAR! Someone please go violently protest Admiral's physical location. Wherever that is.
 
eldertru said:
Just curious to know, What is your ideal Ad experience?
Click to expand...

Yea, all I see is a banner that flows next to the site label at the top. The actual annoyance is the notices that bring the first post down to the bottom / off the first page. Not ads.

eldertru said:
I have no issues with any ads here. They are related to computer enthusiasts products and they don't screw up my computer. While I don't pay Patreon, I do make it a habit to click through and see what the advertisers are trying to sell.;)
Click to expand...

Thing is is that the sites have to monitor and report / regulate them. If the H wasn't over it, we'd have shit pushed through. Right now the ad companies can eat 12 dicks. The google initiative of blocking is to block the shit ads, not just block ads. But we'll see if that just creates a monopoly, cartel, or not.
 
I'm not a laywer but I'm pretty sure that URL's and links are already determined to be fair use. In fact, the recently decided Perfect 10 v. Amazon (in Feb) specifically addresses this issue at least for the Ninth Circuit. URL's and reduced size thumbnails that were generated by mousing over the links or by image search were okay. The court specifically ruled that they hyperlinks were not copyright infringement and that even thumbnails were fair use. If you look at the reasoning, it is pretty clear that this DMCA situation is analogous to the Perfect 10 case and should not have been taken down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/another-loss-perfect-10-another-good-day-copyright-law
 
trparky said:
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?
Click to expand...
There's also that little matter of ads that block most of the screen or blare loud audio right away. I could do without those.
 
RealBeast said:
Actually, when they get slapped down in federal court for trying to stretch DMCA well beyond its actual purpose it will be a good thing. Sucks to be the guy to litigate it, but the outcome is all but a foregone conclusion.

Oh, and hosts file blocking works great too.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know about that. I mean, feature creep is pretty common in law.
 
Trimlock said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then the ad blocking companies would be crying monopolistic overreach by Google and be suing them. Sad f-ing state of affairs!
 
Syntax_Error said:
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....
Click to expand...

I saw a quote from a media representative that they actually did consider not watching the commercials to be stealing. At the time, they just couldn't do anything about it.

Found it:

Between the time that ReplayTV was sued and the time it died came the clearest expression from the entertainment moguls of what consumers had the right, and didn't have the right to do. It came from Jamie Kellner, then chairman of Turner Broadcasting System, now the head of a small station group. In an interview with Staci Kramer, Kellner described commercial skipping as "theft." He said: "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you're actually stealing the programming."

Kellner conceded to a "certain amount of tolerance" for someone to go to the restroom during a commercial
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OldGator said:
I'll be happy to view their $13 billion in ads if they pay for the cost of my internet.

.
Click to expand...

This exactly!

Especially on metered or mobile connections. If an ad causes you to exceed your data limit and cause a $20 fee, the advertiser must refund you the fee.

Maybe that would be a good way to get ISPs to stop with data caps and limits, since they probably get some revenue from the ad companies also.
 
This made me remember this picture:

500
 
Heads up Firefox users: AdBlock Plus is going to die, and you'll all be using uBlock Origin very soon.
 
As a browser I hate ads. But if I was in the ad business I would want ad blockers abolished. Tough call. If ad blockers ever become abolished maybe I'll get in the game. :)
 
Last edited:
If this succeeds, could publishers of malware then sue the Internet Security software publishers? (AVG, Symantec, McAfee, etc.) I recall some common trojans that were bundled with a lot of installers were Bargain Buddy, Internet Optimizer, Virtual Bouncer, Xupiter, Cool Web Search, Elite Bar, and Winfixer. Could all the publishers of this malware now sue the security software industry and maybe even us, the users?
 
ads is a pain in the butt anyway, I like to see a clean page, like google search page. A page fill of animated gifs and ads, ruins it, its a wasteland. Plus why would people spend that much money on a phone and then see a bunch of ads banner for each apps, that's annoying, thank goodness there is tools out there that blocks it. aww much better ;).
 
CVNet1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

good luck with that approach. That's why we have adblock plug ins rather than ip lists like we used to. The lists got so damn long that it slowed shit down. No idea what the threshold would be today, but it's still probably sub optimal if you ahve to do all ad blocking that way.
 
Master_shake_ said:
how do they quantify that they lost 13 billion dollars?

is it like the myth of the "lost sale"?
Click to expand...


I don't think it is.

If I, as an advertiser, pay for an add space on a site, and the site gets one million clicks, but my add doesn't get one million views, and I am paying the site owner to run my add, I'm not exactly maximizing my "bang for the buck" am I?

Because the Ad has an intrinsic cost, and the value is link to the website's traffic, ad blockers do reduce the effectiveness of my advertising money. It's not the same thing as saying that my digital product was "stolen" x times.
 
Syntax_Error said:
. 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.
Click to expand...

I know you will disagree, but I am thinking that they are going to win this because .... it's not about you. Not from their point of view, and possibly not from a Judge's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top