- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 5,586
I don't, and I want to be careful not to veer into personal attacks - that's not productive at all.
Non-Intrusive Ads… for a Short While
- Thread starter Bartolumiu
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 5,586
MD makes everyone uploading a work check a box that says they have permission/rights to upload the work to the site. If someone were to upload something in violation of copyright, they personally would be responsible for that, and MD would be in the clear so long as they complied with any DMCA takedown request from the copyright holder.
To be honest, that checkbox is utterly pointless. The uploaders are personally responsible for their content regardless if it exists or not and while I get the intention to hide behind the DMCA act and it's provisions for user generated content, I don't think MD would have a snowball's chance in hell, if it really went to court. That's because it's pretty much impossible to make an argument that the site ISN'T made with the intention of hosting content illegaly. The number of publications they actually have the rights holder's permission for is almost non-existant compared to all the rest. This is in contrast to platforms like Youtube, where it's the other way around.
The only true thing protecting both MD and the scanlators is the fact that no one would actually bother to go through the courts with this. At least, it did so far. Now that MD is known to have sources of ravenue and an actual company behind it, someone might decide to actually bet that they'd get more out of them than they'd use on such a project.
It depends on the context, i.e. the allegations brought against them. Since we were talking about ads and the potential for damages to users arising from them, it does not mean that all of the ToS is automatically null and void. That's why I brought up specific parts of it and pointed out they would most likely by dismissed anyway, since it's overreach. If we're talking about a publisher or some other rights-holder's representative suing then in theory, the ToS should help protect them as per the DMC act's clauses about user-generated content, because they are creating the illusion that they function similarily to legit platforms like YT. I say in theory, because it's a very thinly veiled illusion. The letter of the law is one thing, but courts consider the intent as well and it's clear as day that MDs intent is to build a community around illegaly hosted content. Sites like The Pirate Bay are an example that in order to have plausible deniability, you actually need a plausible excuse.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 5,586
The site has changed its content makeup considerably recently - there are a lot more links to outside sites and a lot more author-shared content on MD than there used to be - I'm not sure the 'no legitimate use' case can really be made in light of that. And while it gets abused in fantastic ways, the protection provided by DMCA has been pretty resilient - provided you comply with it, which has been the issue a lot of other sites have run into.
Has it though? I do not know of any examples where MD was actually brought to court and got off free thanks to it's takedown policies. In fact, I know of no such example for any similar site. Do you? As far as I'm aware, to date it's always been the same song and dance: publisher sends threatening letter, MD takes everything down, no further word on the topic. One can't say it helps if a different scenario was never attempted. On the other hand, plenty of aggregators simply ignore all such communications and you don't hear about them having serious legal trouble (or at least, I don't).
Aggregator gang
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 50
I didn't say I wanted change. This website is entering it's end phase. Ad infested kissmanga clone, hope you enjoy all the malware and spyware that's to come.
For all you two are debating on whether contractual clauses can waive rights/etc or not, I think the bigger point would be that a ToS simply is not binding just because it exists. And while some countries accept the idea that "checking a checkbox on registration" is like signing the contract (which would make it binding), many other countries do not, or only accept clauses the user might expect (pretty much same type of stuff as how it works with an implied contract with a restaurant when you order food, that you will pay the cost of the food, but not need to pay any surprise fees. Because the latter is not expected).
But even if you live in such a country where checkboxes makes it binding, that still means anyone who has not registered an account are not beholden to the ToS, and as such any defensive clauses meant ot waive resposibility on behalf of the site, simply does not apply to those users. So you would get a site that can only advertise to registered users, if it had any hopes to operate under the assumption those clauses protects them.
But like I said, luckily in many countries a checkbox on registration is not enough anyway, and a ToS is just never binding. Because it has been found that users are not expected to read it, and that the proliferation of such agreements makes it to just be assumed by the user the agreement is just the equivalent of "behave", and most importantly, because it is given to users alike without any attempts to discriminate whether they are a minor or not, etc (basically the argument goes that "minors can't make binding contracts without their guardian's agreement too, and if you do not care whether the signee is a minor and the agreement void, then you can't expect it to be binding for when that is not the case, either.").
(thoguh if I remember correctly, the real and truly damning reason they do not hold, is because a contract needs to be such that the signee can modify it and sign their modifications, before sending it back to be accepted and signed by the recipient. PLUS that both parties need to be given a copy signed by both parties)
long story short, I did not really have a point I was trying to make
but at the very least, that a company can never protect itself merely by having a ToS on its website. Even if it had been a valid clause to say "I am not responsible for any damages users receive from malware inside ads we serve them" (which is a comment I make unrelated to the context of MD and ads, as I actually don't know about the news ppl have kept on mentioning about operagx and malware, earlier in this thread).
But even if you live in such a country where checkboxes makes it binding, that still means anyone who has not registered an account are not beholden to the ToS, and as such any defensive clauses meant ot waive resposibility on behalf of the site, simply does not apply to those users. So you would get a site that can only advertise to registered users, if it had any hopes to operate under the assumption those clauses protects them.
But like I said, luckily in many countries a checkbox on registration is not enough anyway, and a ToS is just never binding. Because it has been found that users are not expected to read it, and that the proliferation of such agreements makes it to just be assumed by the user the agreement is just the equivalent of "behave", and most importantly, because it is given to users alike without any attempts to discriminate whether they are a minor or not, etc (basically the argument goes that "minors can't make binding contracts without their guardian's agreement too, and if you do not care whether the signee is a minor and the agreement void, then you can't expect it to be binding for when that is not the case, either.").
(thoguh if I remember correctly, the real and truly damning reason they do not hold, is because a contract needs to be such that the signee can modify it and sign their modifications, before sending it back to be accepted and signed by the recipient. PLUS that both parties need to be given a copy signed by both parties)
long story short, I did not really have a point I was trying to make
but at the very least, that a company can never protect itself merely by having a ToS on its website. Even if it had been a valid clause to say "I am not responsible for any damages users receive from malware inside ads we serve them" (which is a comment I make unrelated to the context of MD and ads, as I actually don't know about the news ppl have kept on mentioning about operagx and malware, earlier in this thread).
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2019
- Messages
- 8,453
That turned into NaviComi I believe.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2018
- Messages
- 824
Wow it’s like the ads are getting worse every couple days. It went from something I saw here and there, to now at the top of my follows page, in the sidebar menu, on the search page… I LEGIT have fewer ads on some crappy aggregation sites. I’ve been using tools to target-block the ads for now, but if they get worse, there will be ZERO reason left to not just use a site like Mangakalot or whatever. I’ll miss the comment threads, sure, but that alone won’t keep me here - especially with how few series I follow even get uploaded to MD at all anymore.
It's not really a question of whether the entire ToS has any pull. Though it's undeniable that setting it up as a "by visiting this site you've agreed to the ToS" is VERY shaky even in jurisdictions like the US and that's exactly what they've done here. Even if you assume that's above board, the clauses that pertain to the ads and their consequences are simply not acceptable in any (western) legislation I'm aware of. It's an attempt to wash their hands entirely off everything they themselves are allowing their partners to do, while still drawing benefits from it. No (western) court would take this seriously. It's like trying to declare bankrupcy, but still keeping all the assests you have left, while leaving your creditors with jack diddly squat.For all you two are debating on whether contractual clauses can waive rights/etc or not, I think the bigger point would be that a ToS simply is not binding just because it exists. And while some countries accept the idea that "checking a checkbox on registration" is like signing the contract (which would make it binding), many other countries do not, or only accept clauses the user might expect (pretty much same type of stuff as how it works with an implied contract with a restaurant when you order food, that you will pay the cost of the food, but not need to pay any surprise fees. Because the latter is not expected).
But even if you live in such a country where checkboxes makes it binding, that still means anyone who has not registered an account are not beholden to the ToS, and as such any defensive clauses meant ot waive resposibility on behalf of the site, simply does not apply to those users. So you would get a site that can only advertise to registered users, if it had any hopes to operate under the assumption those clauses protects them.
But like I said, luckily in many countries a checkbox on registration is not enough anyway, and a ToS is just never binding. Because it has been found that users are not expected to read it, and that the proliferation of such agreements makes it to just be assumed by the user the agreement is just the equivalent of "behave", and most importantly, because it is given to users alike without any attempts to discriminate whether they are a minor or not, etc (basically the argument goes that "minors can't make binding contracts without their guardian's agreement too, and if you do not care whether the signee is a minor and the agreement void, then you can't expect it to be binding for when that is not the case, either.").
(thoguh if I remember correctly, the real and truly damning reason they do not hold, is because a contract needs to be such that the signee can modify it and sign their modifications, before sending it back to be accepted and signed by the recipient. PLUS that both parties need to be given a copy signed by both parties)
long story short, I did not really have a point I was trying to make
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1,611
Again, I'm going to go cite the precedent set in the record labels vs Napster case, where judges ruled that Napster had to police their system within their means, and it's absolutely with MD's means to police what's being uploaded to the site, because unlike Napster, which used P2P filesharing and therefore didn't host any files, MD hosts the manga that's uploaded, which means MD has the ability to access the uploaded files.
To be fair, in Napster's case it was not a reasonable process. The company appealed and claimed it would implement measures that block "over 99% of infringing downloads" (whether that would indeed be the case is another matter in this context). The ninth district's response was that this would not be good enough and it would have to be 100% or nothing. In short they were held to an impossible standard and that was after the DMCA was already established. RIAA pushed with all they had for that and it sure worked.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1,611
Even then, the precedent that the host/facilitator has to police their systems within their means still applies to MD, so by allowing pirated content on MD, isn't the staff are essentially making any contracts involving the use of MD—such as the ToS—essentially unenforceable because MD itself is basically an illegal operation?
In absolute terms, I wouldn't say so. That's because not all of the ToS is directly involved with whatever illegal activity it would be established that they persue. For example, if someone were to raise the issue that their small child suffered because of the site's or forum's content, then the part about not being allowed to use the site as a minor would still apply and act as protection. Or at least, it would have if it weren't set up in a way that you can interact with it before even having the chance to read the ToS. That's highly problematic.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Messages
- 1,611
Wasn't it legislated in the late 90s—at least in the US—that you had to be at least 13 to use the internet unsupervised? I distinctly remember this being a thing because it caused Yahoo to lock user accounts associated with birthdays that would make the user under 13 at the time—though it could easily be bypassed by providing a false birthday when creating a new account—immediately.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 188
You're effectively hosting the "aggregator" locally. That means you need to be running some process to actually query other sites (via extensions) and serve webpages to your client. This isn't any different from when you run SillyTavern or AUTOMATIC1111 or any number of WebUI-based tools.
They package a client (Suwayomi-WebUI) with the server (Suwayomi-Server), but you're not required to use that one. You can download manga, and then run a Suwayomi serve to serve them to an android app, for instance, so you're even less tied to the usual aggregator revolving door of DMCAs. Of course, if you're lazy like me, you can just install extensions and pull on the aggregators with good libraries but awful websites.
Doesn't sound too shabby, though I imagine you need to set up those extensions to specific sites a priori, rather than it being able to just search for whatever you want? Still, those github readmes are really written by total ghouls... a ton of pages on whatever niche configurations you could imagine, but not a word about what the software really does and doesn't...
Similar threads
