-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 810
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Submitting 23 more entries #5353
Comments
A "real" paywall is a wall that is present with uBO disabled, we will not intentionally circumvent it. |
Huh, okay. I recall that Frellwit's understanding of it was that a "real" paywall was one where the content was not loaded for non-paying users, whereas a "fake" paywall would load the content and then use CSS to hide it. If your explanation differs significantly from his, then I suppose that this issue report could in fact be closed entirely. |
I agree that such paywalls are not very effective but they are applied indiscriminately to all users, so I think they are out of scope of uBO. |
If that thread's comments are still accurate for uAssets (as in that they haven't been superceded by another stance in the following 9 months), then it's a fair stance that I'll accept. |
Everyone has their own definition of fake paywalls. AdGuard believes all paywalls are real, uAssets believes paywalls that are shown to all users are real, and I believe paywalls that cannot be broken by changing browser settings are real. Can't believe AdGuard decided to cover their wallet instead of fighting this nonsense, apparently you can't legally change your browser settings in Europe anymore. |
Now that you mention it, I learned from #5320 that AdGuard even considers forced login prompts to be paywalls, which they in turn don't want to deal with, to which my instinctive reaction is to be very confused. In addition, I actually live in Europe, and even without looking things up in detail, there are several problems with AdGuard's alleged stance:
|
What do you mean by that? Which EU-regulation prohibits the changing of browser settings. |
AdGuard is a for-profit company, if they give the finger then they'll lose out on profits. I don't quite remember the exact details, but it's something like A lot of the stuff is not in English, but it looks like |
I know the case and Adblock/Plus solution to the potential legal problems, i.e. do not circumvent any anti-adblock wall, is the more consistent policy. To differentiate between anti-adblock walls that give the option to pay and anti-adblock walls without such an option is nonsensical, if you agree with the premise that circumventing such walls is prohibited by § 95a UrhG. |
I'm having some problems trying to read up on all this fast enough, but the recentmost stance of AdGuard and/or the German court system on the matter confuses me:
Just what on earth kind of anti-adblock wall has paid backdoors? Except arguably if it's a membership system that specifically has ad-free viewing as a perk? Not to mention all the cases where it's not even anti-adblock walls, but login-mandating walls. |
They said no such thing, the court said the usage of an adblocker is allowed and the site owner can put up a paywall it did not say anything specific about the legality of circumventing it because that question was not relevant to the case. If you want to practice your german you can read the full ruling.
😉 |
Try going to They claim that circumventing their wall violates
which is a part of the german copyright law. |
Ah, interesting... For some reason I thought disabling JavaScript works. Well, scrap what I said earlier. |
I would argue that an anti-adblock wall does not violate the quoted section because the mentioned protective measures should "protect a work" the mentioned works like "bild.de" are openly accessible to everybody with a browser, one is only blocked after the site concludes that the user has an adblocker. If you go to a site with such an “access control” mechanism with your adblocker enabled, you can not access that site. If a site can’t make me pay, and doesn’t want it’s content to be viewed unless I pay, simply don’t send me the content. |
Thank to the way ABP defended itself, a lot of stuff are in the gray zone now... Now back to the initial topic -- what kind of paywalls are "real". I would argue that if the paywall can be broken by changing browser settings, then it's not "effective", and thus "fake". The questions is, do I want to YOLO or play safe. I'm more inclined to say play safe, so I'll probably carry though with my plan to move fake wall removal rules off NanoFilters. |
But considering this thing exists... Tough decisions, touch decisions everywhere... |
I am most definitely in the YOLO camp here. After all, I frequently maintain a list whose entire purpose is to remove login nags (including of uncloseable walls), and I had a dream of getting it included in uBO until not too long ago, when I conceded defeat and began to submit entries from it to uAssets instead. It does not deal with anti-adblock walls at all, however; and paywall bypasses are merely a bonus. |
I admit to be unsure what the regulations and definitions are between "true" and "fake" paywalls, but I'm of the personal perception that all or almost all of the paywalls in the below entries are of the fake variety.
It's established by now that uBlock Filters - Annoyances can deal with forced logins, so I felt it was time for me to up the ante by submitting entries that bypass honest-to-gods paywalls, and see how it goes.
Versions
Settings
Notes
I was clued on to the latter five sites by browsing through r/assholedesign daily for a month or so this winter. However, after that subreddit deteriorated into infinite reposts (e.g. of the Cosmopolitan newsletter insultment) and uneducated comments (Many of which insulted ad-complaining OPs for "How else are they gonna earn money?"), I didn't really want to namedrop them as a credit anymore.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: