renatogoes 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (64) comment rss

  • On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists

    renatogoes ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2017 @ 06:15pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Then they could ignore US laws, and continue to sell to US Customers. SuperScout, if it still existed, would not be subject to prosecution in the United States, for not complying with US laws. Of course they can ignore the US laws, those pirate sites also do that. Unfortunately, some evil yankee companies (like visa and paypal) won't help them receive the money from Americans customers (and probably also from everybody else). In other words, they could sell it US Customers, if they were still around, and would not be subject to prosecution in the United States. Every time someone believes that, Kim Dotcom sentence is increased by one day.

  • On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists

    renatogoes ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2017 @ 04:57pm

    Re:

    There is one filtering software, that if it were still made, would not be subject to US laws. SuperScout, before it was bought out by a US company, was developed and sold from Britain. So SuperScout, if they still existed, could tell Admiral to go take a long walk off a short pier, and that is nothing they could do about it, as a software company in the United Kingdom, is not subject to US laws
    It doesn't matter where/by whom it is made from, it could not be sold in the US if it doesn't subject itself to US laws. Similarly to the case of American companies Google and Apple in China. I'm not sure but I guess that other countries also have similar DRM and anti-circumvention laws, and it is even worse as some have a more lax approach to enable blocking based on copyright claims.

  • On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists

    renatogoes ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2017 @ 02:22pm

    Re:

    The (w)holy copyright has to be maintained, no one cares if as a collateral some people are forced to watch ads.

  • On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists

    renatogoes ( profile ), 14 Aug, 2017 @ 01:58pm

    A more complex long term idea than it looks like

    It looks like they don't care at all to this particular domain (functionalclam.com) and they are actually building something more complex for future deployment.
    It really looks like the website is being used for a simple anti-adblock scheme that would require that the user accept it with the ads or do not receive anything at all. However, by using a more DRMish lingo and implementation, it became more a circumvention case of their specific "terms of service" (also get the ads or get nothing) to access this copyrighted content than a simple adblocking. And it really looks like a DRM deployment on a whole website.
    Although it would result in a mere anti-adblock case that will drive the users out of the website, this won't happen at all. It is also irrelevant for them if the users have the right to block it and a few will come with their own (non-scalable) solutions to avoid some ads. Their real objective is to create a precedent to obtain domains that cannot be blocked by adblocks. And what better domain to serve ads than one that cannot be blocked by an adblock made by a company with legal liability? [and the DMCA anti-circumvention already proved to be strong enough to build a case against someone.]