SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The PDF contains the full paper (14 pages), but also includes the following abstract:
Abstract—Millions of people use adblockers to remove intrusive and malicious ads as well as protect themselves against tracking and pervasive surveillance. Online publishers consider adblockers a major threat to the ad-powered "free" Web. They have started to retaliate against adblockers by employing anti- adblockers which can detect and stop adblock users. To counter this retaliation, adblockers in turn try to detect and filter anti-adblocking scripts. This back and forth has prompted an escalating arms race between adblockers and anti-adblockers.
We want to develop a comprehensive understanding of anti- adblockers, with the ultimate aim of enabling adblockers to bypass state-of-the-art anti-adblockers. In this paper, we present a differential execution analysis to automatically detect and analyze anti-adblockers. At a high level, we collect execution traces by visiting a website with and without adblockers. Through differ- ential execution analysis, we are able to pinpoint the conditions that lead to the differences caused by anti-adblocking code. Using our system, we detect anti-adblockers on 30.5% of the Alexa top- 10K websites which is 5-52 times more than reported in prior literature. Unlike prior work which is limited to detecting visible reactions (e.g., warning messages) by anti-adblockers, our system can discover attempts to detect adblockers even when there is no visible reaction. From manually checking one third of the detected websites, we find that the websites that have no visible reactions constitute over 90% of the cases, completely dominating the ones that have visible warning messages. Finally, based on our findings, we further develop JavaScript rewriting and API hooking based solutions (the latter implemented as a Chrome extension) to help adblockers bypass state-of-the-art anti-adblockers.
The conclusion is as follows:
We presented a differential execution analysis approach to discover anti-adblockers. Our insight is that websites equipped with anti-adblockers will exhibit different execution traces when they are visited by a browser with and without an adblocker. Based on this, our system enables us to unveil many more (up to 52×) anti-adblocking websites and scripts than reported in prior literature. Moreover, since our approach en- ables us to pinpoint the exact branch statements and conditions involved in adblocker detection, we can steer execution away from the anti-adblocking code through JavaScript rewriting or hide the presence of adblockers through API hooking. Our system can bypass a vast majority of anti-adblockers without causing any site functionality breakage (except one with Javascript rewriting).
We anticipate escalation of the technological battle between adblockers and anti-adblockers — at least in the short term. From the perspective of security and privacy conscious users, it is crucial that adblockers are able to keep up with anti- adblockers. Moreover, the increasing popularity of adblocking has already led to various reform efforts within the online advertising industry to improve ads (e.g., Coalition for Better Ads [5], Acceptable Ads Committee [2]) and even alternate monetization models (e.g., Google Contributor [6], Brave Payments [4]). However, to keep up the pressure on publishers and advertisers in the long term, we believe it is crucial that adblockers keep pace with anti-adblockers in the rapidly escalating technological arms race. Our work represents an important step in this direction.
I found it an interesting read, although I accept that the whole 14 pages might be a little too heavy for some.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by arcz on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:14PM (19 children)
Starting to get the realm of copyright violations. The publishers have obviously decided that you're not allowed to load the article without ads. It's one thing to selectively not load part of the content (legal adblocking), but quite another to modify that content or alter it. The latter is copyright infringement.
(Score: 5, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:24PM (3 children)
It's only infringement if you redistribute. And patches are generally not considered derivative works unless they contain context from the original source.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:57AM (2 children)
Except in the United States. Where modifying a copyrighted work is infringement, 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2).
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Friday December 29 2017, @04:24PM (1 child)
Interesting. I can't imagine any ways in the pre-internet world to enforce a rule that forbids the equivalent of writing secret fan fiction. How old is that statute? I find it curious that something so plainly unenforceable would be written into law.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Troll) by arcz on Saturday December 30 2017, @08:23PM
It actually is enforced, rarely. Obviously they aren't going to enforce it when you modify stuff on your own computer. Where it matters is the concept of induced infringement, where someone does something to induce another to infringe. Making an adblockers that modifies content falls under this category, you'd be inducing others (the users of the adblock software) to infringe copyright. So this is a form of indirect infringement of copyright, which does include damages, though not direct infringement.
Writing fan fiction is technically infringement, but a company has no standing to sue unless that fan fiction somehow damages the company. Usually that isn't the case unless the fan fiction is sold.
(IANAL)
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:34PM
>Being this confused about copyright
Sorry brah, but click-though EULA aren't enforceable in Europe.
(Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:42PM (3 children)
Once your computer (server) sends me some data it's mine to do whatever I want with it as long as I don't redistribute it to anyone else in an unauthorized way. I have no obligation to run every piece of code that every site I visit sends to my browser.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:40AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @02:58PM
Lets not confuse CFAA with copyright shall we?
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:55AM
Correct. Where it gets tricky is when the scripts are designed such that they do not load the content until after they confirm that the ads have been displayed. In this circumstance, you cannot block the ads and not the content without editing the scripts somehow. (Copyright infringement, 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2))
(Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:55PM (1 child)
That's kind of like saying that's "copyright infringement" to buy a book and cross out every occurrence of the word "cheese" and hand-write the word "glass".
I.e. idiotic nonsense.
(Score: 4, Touché) by EvilSS on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:35PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday December 27 2017, @10:57PM (4 children)
So if I have my wife rip all the adverts out of our newspaper before I read it, does she commit a crime or do I?
When I Pay my neighbor to do the same, then what?
When I pay the guy down at the news stand to the same on the paper I am about to buy, then what?
When buy down at the news stand offers for sale pre-de-advertised papers then what?
Have you found the flaw in your argument yet?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by r_a_trip on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:17AM (2 children)
You don't understand copyright. The only thing copyright does is prohibit duplication and further distribution of those copies for a specified time on a work. Altering a work for personal use after the sale has no bearing on copyright. As long as that work is not multiplied and sold on, copyright has no teeth. So rip away.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:17PM
In the same way that after the web server sends me the data, I am free to do with it what I want. They're just complaining that I have a program to do it automatically for me before I see the original version.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:53AM
You say he doesn't understand copyright, but go read 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2) and tell me if you understand copyright as well as you think you do...
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:35PM
It depends.
Did you pay for a license to the newspaper? Did you buy a physical copy that can even be used to line a bird cage or potty train the dog? Or to be used as packaging material when shipping stuff? Or even a gag gift wrap for presents?
There is a difference between what the old media let you do, and what the new media lets you do.
Most newspapers worth reading cost money at the "newstand". The headlines and usually the top half of the first page was displayed publically and reading it was free. They often did not put an ad right on that front page because people were reluctant to pay for ads. As to the free content on display, stare too long and they may shoo you away for obstructing other customers.
Few places online right now are charging customers. It is too easy to just leave the website to find someone else that does have similar content for *free.
*depends on what you are willing to put up with.
Even now, various websites are cryptomining via javascript to keep it free. Its very expensive if you don't shut down because some don't even close out when the browser is forcibly task killed; they are sort of like viruses in that regard, but legal because there was this eula people didn't read and stuff like that.
I think that what most people are doing is that they believe the internet should be like the newspaper you mentioned. But you never mentioned how you paid for the newspaper, or if you found it, or boldly stole it when no one was looking.
The new media considers it theft if you read their content, which is on display, if you also do not look at the ads. They want it to be like live broadcast TV without the benefit of a VCR to skip ads with--not like a newspaper. They very much don't want the printed periodical business model at all.
The alterantive is paywalling, making people buy the content hidden behind the glass door and coin dispensor of yesteryear's newspaper machine. But everyone has been trained to get free everything and so the money isn't made that way anymore. Comparing the two models isn't a fair means to analyze this, because they want everyone to pretend the internet is like TV.
To prevent the VCR problem, most DVRs can't easily be copied to and from, and if from the cable provider, the software is closed source. For most "regular users" at least. And no websites really want to let you save a copy for later reviewing, so my point is essentially moot. They make their money based on a model that expects everyone to pretend that the internet is like broadcast radio and tv before cassettes and video tapes became widespread--and also one that tracks you, but I won't get into that... the newspaper paradigm is not what they are after, despite the similarities as to how you and I digest data.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:07AM (2 children)
With that logic, writing in a book that I own would be illegal. If I allow and adblocker on my computer to later a webpage that I am viewing, that is my business and none of anyone elses.
Is this app illegal? https://kickassapp.com [kickassapp.com]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:34AM
Writing in a book you own would indeed be modifying the book, but allowed under the first sale doctrine and the fair use doctrine. Since you didn't pay for the article, you can't rely on the first sale doctrine, and I doubt it would fall under fair use either.
(Score: 2) by arcz on Friday December 29 2017, @04:50AM
The reason why removing ads is sometimes copyright infringement and sometimes not is that certain methods of blocking ads create a derivative work. If you block ads by refusing to load them, that's allowed, you're simply making the browser refuse to request ads. The problem is when you edit JavaScript. That's different from simply refusing to load it, you're now creating a derivative (modified) work. It doesn't matter if you distribute the derivative work or not, it isn't allowed per 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2). So in summary, your browser can legally block ads by blocking HTTP/HTTPS requests, but it cannot edit the content of pages. (refusing to load html requests does not actually edit the page in any way, it simply causes the element not to be included in the normal way that elements do not appear when an HTTP request fails). Where adblocking gets illegal is when the website uses anti-adblock technology. If the same script is loading ads, checking that the ad actually displays, and then loading the content after it has confirmed that the ad has displayed, you cannot legally block that ad without blocking the content, as you'd need to edit the JavaScript to do so. This is because editing the JavaScript creates a derivative work. So what about cutting ads out of newspapers? Well, probably not copyright infringement, since the first sale doctrine usually applies to newspaper sales. If you got the newspaper for free, you might be infringing copyright, but it would probably be considered de minis. (IANAL)