TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

DMCA, Easylist, Adblock, Copyright Access Control and Admiral

108 点作者 bitshiffed将近 8 年前

11 条评论

23o3o9d将近 8 年前
So... pardon the language but:<p>Fuck you Admiral, and congratulations.<p>I had no idea who you were before but you&#x27;ve become a shining example of corporate authoritarian entitlement.<p>It&#x27;s my damn computer and if I want to deface a webpage on my computer I can do it however I want--I can adblock it, I can use MS Paint to draw bananas on it, or I can get my toddler to do it with an eraseable crayon.
评论 #14992024 未加载
gergles将近 8 年前
The thing I found most hilarious about this is that the author of this post previously worked at Grooveshark, a company that was only remotely successful because they flaunted copyright the entire time they operated.<p>That he&#x27;s now using the DMCA (incorrectly) to protect his business model is the height of ridiculousness in my book.
评论 #14991530 未加载
评论 #14992513 未加载
danielhlockard将近 8 年前
I had no idea who Admiral was before, and I can&#x27;t say I have a great opinion of them now. I&#x27;m sorry, but you don&#x27;t get to control what I can and cannot ad block.<p>This is mind blowing since Dan was the COO of GROOVESHARK which basically didn&#x27;t care about copyright, at all.
评论 #14993152 未加载
stordoff将近 8 年前
&gt; We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit. &#x2F; Their response seemed to indicate they would only take action if GitHub agreed.<p>That&#x27;s your take on that interaction? To me, the commit comment reads as someone borderline impersonating GitHub. &quot;has been reported to circumvent copyright access controls&quot; - reported to whom, exactly? By linking to GitHub&#x27;s policies, you suggest that it is GitHub, but A) according to your post did not report it until _after_ that comment, and B) a report to GitHub doesn&#x27;t mean you can demand removal through alternative channels.
评论 #14993084 未加载
评论 #14993687 未加载
drtillberg将近 8 年前
If blocking the domain grants access to the material, somewhat like a door that opens when no key is presented, it would seem unclear how this is an &quot;effective[]&quot; technological control.<p>Also, the DMCA (Section 1201(i)) permits blocking of effective technological controls that are capable of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about the online activities of a person. Admiral does not address this, and looking at the details it seems perhaps the issue would be the rationale for the blocking (privacy or a mixed purpose).
seretogis将近 8 年前
It looks like the EFF has offered assistance, and I really hope they follow-through to prevent this from setting a precedent.
bitshiffed将近 8 年前
Follow up from yesterday&#x27;s EasyList takedown <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14978228" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14978228</a> .<p>EDIT: Summary of issue up to now <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;telegra.ph&#x2F;Ad-blocking-is-under-attack-08-11" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;telegra.ph&#x2F;Ad-blocking-is-under-attack-08-11</a> .
JumpCrisscross将近 8 年前
How would one configure Adblock Plus to ensure Admiral&#x27;s domains are blocked irrespective of whether EasyList capitulates?<p>(Asking as a hypothetical, of course.)
评论 #14992173 未加载
评论 #14992903 未加载
评论 #14992206 未加载
bitshiffed将近 8 年前
Anybody know the usual amount of time it takes for GitHub to post a DMCA notice?<p>They should&#x27;ve received Admirals takedown at least 2 days ago, but it still hasn&#x27;t shown up on <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;github&#x2F;dmca&#x2F;tree&#x2F;master" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;github&#x2F;dmca&#x2F;tree&#x2F;master</a> .
评论 #14991927 未加载
jdennaho将近 8 年前
tell us more about how you are garbage
msimpson将近 8 年前
It&#x27;s important to note that Admiral is making the claim that this domain is used as part of their platform which protects the integrity of paywalls, which in turn guards copyrighted material of their clients. Therefore, this would be a correct application of the DMCA according to 17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;17&#x2F;1201" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;uscode&#x2F;text&#x2F;17&#x2F;1201</a><p>Subsection A specifically states, &quot;No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.&quot;<p>So while I do not endorse the mechanism of paywalls: if Admirals narrative and claims hold true, this is in fact a correct application of the DMCA.
评论 #14991886 未加载
评论 #14992501 未加载