DMCA Used to Remove Ad Server URL From Easylist Ad Blocklist

A

antreas

Thread author
Easylist, the popular adblock filter list used by millions of subscribers, appears to be under attack. Github, where the project is maintained, has recently received a DMCA notice requiring a domain URL to be removed from the list. That domain appears to be owned by US-based anti-adblocking company Admiral.

The default business model on the Internet is “free” for consumers. Users largely expect websites to load without paying a dime but of course, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. To this end, millions of websites are funded by advertising revenue.

Sensible sites ensure that any advertising displayed is unobtrusive to the visitor but lots seem to think that bombarding users with endless ads, popups, and other hindrances is the best way to do business. As a result, ad blockers are now deployed by millions of people online.

In order to function, ad-blocking tools – such as uBlock Origin or Adblock – utilize lists of advertising domains compiled by third parties. One of the most popular is Easylist, which is distributed by authors fanboy, MonztA, Famlam, and Khrinunder, under dual Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GNU General Public Licenses.

With the freedom afforded by those licenses, copyright tends not to figure high on the agenda for Easylist. However, a legal problem that has just raised its head is causing serious concern among those in the ad-blocking community.

Two days ago a somewhat unusual commit appeared in the Easylist repo on Github. As shown in the image below, a domain URL previously added to Easylist had been removed following a DMCA takedown notice filed with Github.

Domain text taken down by DMCA?

The DMCA notice in question has not yet been published but it’s clear that it targets the domain ‘functionalclam.com’. A user called ‘ameshkov’ helpfully points out a post by a new Github user called ‘DMCAHelper’ which coincided with the start of the takedown process more than three weeks ago.

A domain in a list circumvents copyright controls?

Aside from the curious claims of a URL “circumventing copyright access controls” (domains themselves cannot be copyrighted), the big questions are (i) who filed the complaint and (ii) who operates Functionalclam.com? The domain WHOIS is hidden but according to a helpful sleuth on Github, it’s operated by anti ad-blocking company Admiral.

Ad-blocking means money down the drain….

If that is indeed the case, 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.

Combined with the comments by DMCAHelper on Github, this statement suggests that the complainants believe that interference with the ad display process (ads themselves could be the “copyrighted content” in question) represents a breach of section 1201 of the DMCA.

If it does, that could have huge consequences for online advertising but we will need to see the original DMCA notice to have a clearer idea of what this is all about. Thus far, Github hasn’t published it but already interest is growing. A representative from the EFF has already contacted the Easylist team, so this battle could heat up pretty quickly.
 

kamla5abi

Level 4
Verified
May 15, 2017
178
lol ad blocking is pretty much the OPPOSITE of obtaining copyrighted material illegally (which is what DMCA is supposed to protect). People aren't trying to access the digital content illegally... hell they are trying NOT to access the digital content AT ALL. They are trying to BLOCK their OWN access to it lol :rolleyes:o_O

if you upload a movie somewhere for others to "circumvent copyright protections" and download it illegally, that is within the DMCA domain since the digital publisher is trying "to control access to copyrighted content in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act" by having it removed from being distributed illegally online...

If its true that you cant copyright a domain, i dont see how a domain falls under DMCA anyways...:p
and if they are trying to say the "ad" itself is the copyrighted object...then people trying to block it violates DMCA how exactly?? they arent trying to gain access to it at all...o_O
 

Deletedmessiah

Level 25
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Jan 16, 2017
1,469
Lol money rules. Always want MOAR! Twisting laws, playing with words to their own advantage as usual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fritz

DJ Panda

Level 30
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Aug 30, 2015
1,928
lol ad blocking is pretty much the OPPOSITE of obtaining copyrighted material illegally (which is what DMCA is supposed to protect). People aren't trying to access the digital content illegally... hell they are trying NOT to access the digital content AT ALL. They are trying to BLOCK their OWN access to it lol :rolleyes:o_O

if you upload a movie somewhere for others to "circumvent copyright protections" and download it illegally, that is within the DMCA domain since the digital publisher is trying "to control access to copyrighted content in accordance with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act" by having it removed from being distributed illegally online...

If its true that you cant copyright a domain, i dont see how a domain falls under DMCA anyways...:p
and if they are trying to say the "ad" itself is the copyrighted object...then people trying to block it violates DMCA how exactly?? they arent trying to gain access to it at all...o_O

I am pretty sure what they really mean is that the revenue possibly gained from having ads viewed on the screen is being lost because of adblocking. The consumer is looking at content made by the content creator, while the creator doesn't get money because of adblocking, in their eyes they think that as piracy. Do I kind of agree with them? Yes. Do I think the ad system is perfect/acceptable for some sites on the internet? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deletedmessiah

Deletedmessiah

Level 25
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Jan 16, 2017
1,469
I am pretty sure what they really mean is that the revenue possibly gained from having ads viewed on the screen is being lost because of adblocking. The consumer is looking at content made by the content creator, while the creator doesn't get money because of adblocking, in their eyes they think that as piracy. Do I kind of agree with them? Yes. Do I think the ad system is perfect/acceptable for some sites on the internet? No.
I wouldn't use adblockers if the ads weren't annoying or if they didn't track me all the time. But not gonna happen.
 

kamla5abi

Level 4
Verified
May 15, 2017
178
I am pretty sure what they really mean is that the revenue possibly gained from having ads viewed on the screen is being lost because of adblocking. The consumer is looking at content made by the content creator, while the creator doesn't get money because of adblocking, in their eyes they think that as piracy. Do I kind of agree with them? Yes. Do I think the ad system is perfect/acceptable for some sites on the internet? No.
so i just looked into this crap a bit...i get your point of view too but apparently these people took things to a whole new level :eek:

DMCA, Easylist, Adblock, Copyright Access Control & Admiral: 10 Things to Know
that is the company that filed the DMCA request and now published why they did so including their reasoning...
basically its a legal loophole they figured out and then used..:rolleyes:

this is a post written by adguard that also talks about it Ad blocking is under attack

TL;DR version (as far as i understand...)
DMCA protects digital content providers from piracy (the usual definition the public uses/knows about...just as i did above in my previous post...)
problem is, the DMCA legalese also includes protection from any technology/methods that are used to circumvent content protection....
the typical public (like us) thinks of software cracks, keygens, blah blah blah...things used to "go around" the content protection system...
ex, using Software A requires a license that includes a key. So a keygen that creates a "fake" key "goes around" this protection mechanism...so DMCA applies and can be requested to take it down...DMCA ftw, right? ...NOPE

this is where the situation gets messed up...:(o_O

The company Admiral is saying the copyrighted digital content being protected is the website content itself...and that they built a protection mechanism that works like this...

1) Person A goes to some website to view the "protected digital content" on that website
2) website code (made by Admiral but put on any website who buys it from Admiral) checks to see if person A is using an adblocking mechanism (by using some jscript blocking test, ex, test.js)
3) if test.js if blocked/not loaded/whatever then the mechanism assumes the person is using an adblocker
4) then the host in question PROTECTS the digital content on their website by showing them something OTHER than the actual website...
----> so instead of seeing the actual website, person A sees something like "stop using your adblocker if you want to view the website content"...
----> that "message" is what is hosted on the domain in question apparently...and the detection mechanism from above i guess...
5) so now technically speaking legalese, the domain in question is "protecting" the digital content on the original website from being seen IF they detect the user using an adblocker....
6)...now for the kicker...:eek:
7) since the domain in question is now technically a "content protection" mechanism for the original website person A wanted to see, anything used to "circumvent" that mechanism is not allowed under DMCA...
8) meaning the anti-adblocking mechanism inside adblock/adguard/ublock/whatever AND the easylist used by that system to block the "copyright protection mechanism and image" now becomes the thing used to circumvent (go around) the anti-adblocking mechanism in place by Admiral...and shows the user the original websites "protected digital content" despite using an adblocker (which the "content protection " mechanism is trying to prevent...)
9) Therefore, since adblock/adguard/etc AND easylist are used to see "copyrighted digital content" from the original website by "circumventing" the "anti-adblocking mechanism and image" and seeing the content anyways from the original website...that would NOT be seen by a user who blocked the loading of "test.js" by using adblocker....thats how the DMCA crap now applies.

NOTE****(only to the domain in question which hosts the "checking" mechanism and the image displayed if you use an adblocker CANT be blocked since thats "going around" the "checking/protection" mechanism.... The domain that is serving ads CAN STILL be blocked...for now...i think... fu** i dont know anymore without reading the DMCA crap more...lol :p)


*mind blown* by this BS legalese :eek:o_O
-------------------------------------------------------


u know how the US has the 1st ammendment, 2nd ammendment, etc...
they need to ammend the DMCA crap since it was created in 1998 apparently and things have changed so much now...

or just host the list/adblocker OUTSIDE the US....then DMCA doesn't apply?? :p:D:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fritz

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
This is seriously worrying and it sets a precedent for other companies to abuse the same loophole. Hopefully Fanboy & crew come up with a way to combat this.
 

Fritz

Level 11
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Sep 28, 2015
543
Amazing. If they want money for content, they're free to raise a paywall.

When will they start laying out magazines in public locations, wait for passers-by to pick one up and sue them if they don't look at ads long enough while they peruse them? o_O
 
5

509322

Thread author
Easylist, the popular adblock filter list used by millions of subscribers, appears to be under attack. Github, where the project is maintained, has recently received a DMCA notice requiring a domain URL to be removed from the list. That domain appears to be owned by US-based anti-adblocking company Admiral.

The default business model on the Internet is “free” for consumers. Users largely expect websites to load without paying a dime but of course, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. To this end, millions of websites are funded by advertising revenue.

Sensible sites ensure that any advertising displayed is unobtrusive to the visitor but lots seem to think that bombarding users with endless ads, popups, and other hindrances is the best way to do business. As a result, ad blockers are now deployed by millions of people online.

In order to function, ad-blocking tools – such as uBlock Origin or Adblock – utilize lists of advertising domains compiled by third parties. One of the most popular is Easylist, which is distributed by authors fanboy, MonztA, Famlam, and Khrinunder, under dual Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike and GNU General Public Licenses.

With the freedom afforded by those licenses, copyright tends not to figure high on the agenda for Easylist. However, a legal problem that has just raised its head is causing serious concern among those in the ad-blocking community.

Two days ago a somewhat unusual commit appeared in the Easylist repo on Github. As shown in the image below, a domain URL previously added to Easylist had been removed following a DMCA takedown notice filed with Github.

Domain text taken down by DMCA?

The DMCA notice in question has not yet been published but it’s clear that it targets the domain ‘functionalclam.com’. A user called ‘ameshkov’ helpfully points out a post by a new Github user called ‘DMCAHelper’ which coincided with the start of the takedown process more than three weeks ago.

A domain in a list circumvents copyright controls?

Aside from the curious claims of a URL “circumventing copyright access controls” (domains themselves cannot be copyrighted), the big questions are (i) who filed the complaint and (ii) who operates Functionalclam.com? The domain WHOIS is hidden but according to a helpful sleuth on Github, it’s operated by anti ad-blocking company Admiral.

Ad-blocking means money down the drain….

If that is indeed the case, 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.

Combined with the comments by DMCAHelper on Github, this statement suggests that the complainants believe that interference with the ad display process (ads themselves could be the “copyrighted content” in question) represents a breach of section 1201 of the DMCA.

If it does, that could have huge consequences for online advertising but we will need to see the original DMCA notice to have a clearer idea of what this is all about. Thus far, Github hasn’t published it but already interest is growing. A representative from the EFF has already contacted the Easylist team, so this battle could heat up pretty quickly.

This will never survive a legal challenge. Using DMCA to prevent blocking a URL will be shot right out of the sky. People who do not wish to view ads or any other content, copyrighted or otherwise, are not legally obligated to do so (unless, of course, you live in China). Besides, a user can block a URL or IP address right within their browser configuration. So they will demand that every user unblock the URL in their browser configuration ? I don't think so.

If you research it, tactics similar to this have already been tried - and failed.

What if a user legally challenges an online advertiser because its ads significantly slow down and interfere with the browsing process ? The outcome of such a challenge would be "use an ad-blocker."
 

Arequire

Level 29
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Feb 10, 2017
1,822
This will never survive a legal challenge. Using DMCA to prevent blocking a URL will be shot right out of the sky. People who do not wish to view ads or any other content, copyrighted or otherwise, are not legally obligated to do so (unless, of course, you live in China). Besides, a user can block a URL or IP address right within their browser configuration. So they will demand that every user unblock the URL in their browser configuration ? I don't think so.

If you research it, tactics similar to this have already been tried - and failed.

What if a user legally challenges an online advertiser because its ads significantly slow down and interfere with the browsing process ? The outcome of such a challenge would be "use an ad-blocker."
I'd be happy to see the EasyList authors fire up a GoFundMe so users can bankroll their legal challenge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fritz

Windows Defender Shill

Level 7
Verified
Well-known
Apr 28, 2017
326
These advitisers destroyed their business model with their greed. And this is a desperate attempt to escape that fact.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Fritz

oneeye

Level 4
Verified
Jul 14, 2014
174
Oh good! If that's the way they want it? Then, I want a complete list of EVERY single domain a website wants to connect me to, BEFORE I consent, and enter the site! Let's see how they like that? Anyone want to bet, the Flying Monkeys would scream bloody murder. I say, go on and cut your own noses off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fritz

Atlas147

Level 30
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Jul 28, 2014
1,990
One of the drawbacks of using open source i guess
 

soccer97

Level 11
Verified
May 22, 2014
517
Very unlikely to hold up in court. Talk about a frivolous lawsuit. Whoever owns the domain is really harming their revenue/user-base by making this public. Not sure what the site hosts, but I wouldn't choose to visit it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlnevese and Fritz

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top