One for the lawyers - copyright, ad blockers, and paywalls

[Caliga]

Definitely not all are.  For example, when I was a kid there was this store across the street from my house that was run by a dude named Fred Conti.  Hardly anyone ever went in there and we were always like "how does that dude stay in business".  I used to go there every day after school and buy soda and candy, and half the time Mr. Conti was in the back on the phone speaking Italian when I walked in... he had a little bell on the door so he knew when people came in so he'd know to get off the phone.

Anyway, later we found our Mr. Conti was a mob lawyer and the store was his money laundering front.

[Syt]

I had a meeting earlier today where some folks were bitching about a legal invoicing system we have and how the lawyers don't want to go in to it and do the coding so that their invoices actually get generated properly.  I made the joke that lawyers are too busy destroying the world to be bothered with details like being paid correctly.  Everyone laughed.  I'm awesome.

While they laughed, did the lawyers exchange meaningful, knowing glances with one another and nodded, and then scribbled something into their notebooks?

[Caliga]

Oh, I didn't dare make that comment with any of our lawyers in the room.   After all our CEO and COO are both lawyers.

[Martinus]

I would question the "effectiveness" of their paywall if I can circumvent it with an adblocker. I don't alter their original content or their web server configuration by using an ad blocker. I merely change how my computer queries their server and how it processes the received data.

That's a bit like arguing that you are not breaking and entering into another person's home, if they have a shitty door lock.

[Zanza]

That's a bit like arguing that you are not breaking and entering into another person's home, if they have a shitty door lock.

That analogy makes sense with regards to hacking their server. But adblockers don't do that. They merely interpret the data that a server voluntarily sends a bit different by filtering certain portions out. That happens when the data is already in the memory of the client.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm with Marty on this one, and kudos to Marty for his first ever non-super retarded analogy.

The ads are the price you pay for viewing their content.  If you don't pay the price you're stealing their property.  It's not that different from sneaking into a movie theater or jumping a subway turnstile.  In neither of these cases are you putting their property in your pocket and taking it down to the pawn shop to fence, or even damaging it.

[The Brain]

I would question the "effectiveness" of their paywall if I can circumvent it with an adblocker. I don't alter their original content or their web server configuration by using an ad blocker. I merely change how my computer queries their server and how it processes the received data.

That's a bit like arguing that you are not breaking and entering into another person's home, if they have a shitty door lock.

Wouldn't that require that the law requires "effective" locks for breaking and entering? I don't know German law but I haven't heard about such a requirement.

[Martinus]

But it is "effective" in that it stops an average user who is not using special tools from accessing the content. I would in this context interpret "effective" as "working" and not as "state of the art" or "impregnable".

I would say that in this context non-effective would be one that can be circumvented accidentally or without any extra action being needed (in the context of the analogy above, say, someone leaving their door open).

[Martinus]

For the record, in most legal systems, breaking and entering does require that the access inside is gained through use of special tools or actions (as opposed to simply walking into someone's open home which can also be a crime but usually one carrying a much more lenient penalty). But even if someone uses a shitty door lock that can be opened with a credit card, doing so would be breaking and entering. The key here is that the owner put an actual (visible) protection against entry and you are intentionally circumventing it.

[Syt]

Hm, in this case it's an ad-blocker that many people use, and video/forum tutorials on how to set them up to avoid such blocks of ad-blocking. The procedure can be done by lay persons within a few minutes without special tools or advanced technical knowledge by following a step by step instruction. (And at least in the beginning it was possible to get around the adblock-block by disabling javascript in Firefox.)

Sounds ineffective to me.

[Martinus]

I mean when you use a skeleton key you are also not modifying anything about the lock, no?

[Martinus]

Hm, in this case it's an ad-blocker that many people use, and video/forum tutorials on how to set them up to avoid such blocks of ad-blocking. The procedure can be done by lay persons within a few minutes without special tools or advanced technical knowledge by following a step by step instruction. (And at least in the beginning it was possible to get around the adblock-block by disabling javascript in Firefox.)

Sounds ineffective to me.

So imagine that a thief creates a skeleton key to access your home, then creates 10,000 copies of it and mails it, along with your address, to 10,000 people. None of them requires any particular skill to use the skeleton key - it does not mean they can just walk into your home.

[Martinus]

And in this story, it's only the guy who created the "skeleton key mailed it to others" who received a lawyer letter. Sounds pretty right to me.

[Eddie Teach]

You're playing this analogy to the hilt, I see, despite the problem zanza outlined.

[Syt]

So imagine that a thief creates a skeleton key to access your home, then creates 10,000 copies of it and mails it, along with your address, to 10,000 people. None of them requires any particular skill to use the skeleton key - it does not mean they can just walk into your home.