(Asking as a hypothetical, of course.)
Adblock Plus > 'Open the dashboard' > My Filters.
add 'functionalclam.com', no quotes, which will be treated as a HOSTS entry to be ignored.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
Subsection A specifically states, "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
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.
So in a roundabout way, they're effectively claiming that the ads themselves are the paywall. It's a clever argument, to be sure, but I'm not sure it's a reasonable one.
Fuck you Admiral, and congratulations.
I had no idea who you were before but you've become a shining example of corporate authoritarian entitlement.
It'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.
That he's now using the DMCA (incorrectly) to protect his business model is the height of ridiculousness in my book.
That's your take on that interaction? To me, the commit comment reads as someone borderline impersonating GitHub. "has been reported to circumvent copyright access controls" - reported to whom, exactly? By linking to GitHub'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't mean you can demand removal through alternative channels.
Doesn't seem very borderline to me, looks like a blatant attempt to confuse the issue by pretending to be some sort of authority.
Far cry from "We asked them 24 days ago to remove functionalclam[.]com on the original commit."
This is mind blowing since Dan was the COO of GROOVESHARK which basically didn't care about copyright, at all.
They should've received Admirals takedown at least 2 days ago, but it still hasn't shown up on https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master .
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).
EDIT: Summary of issue up to now http://telegra.ph/Ad-blocking-is-under-attack-08-11 .
