That would be a very odd interpretation of that phrase --- because when one usually thinks of "access control" and the DMCA, circumvention is about allowing access to copyrighted work. Adblocking is essentially all about disallowing access.

But if that interpretation does hold up in the courts, it could lead to a very slippery slope where it becomes illegal to refuse to consume specific content. The equivalent of not being able to change the channel on the TV or go do something else when the adverts start, or even... just close one's eyes and ears.

If I understood it correctly, that article is about anti-adblock, which denies access if you have an adblock. That is, the DMCA wouldn't apply to adblock, but would apply to anti-anti-adblock.

Yes, it does seem like a bizarre legal theory, since a simpler way to bypass the anti-adblock would be to disable the adblock. That is, it would be a DMCA violation to not block ads, since by not blocking ads you're bypassing the anti-adblock and watching the content!

Hope you're wrong because this is starting to look like a Black Mirror episode.

Fifteen Million Merits (S01E02) to be specific.

I really don't see what's preventing a site from saying, "in order to use this site you must turn off all forms of content filtering" and have that be enforced by a court.

I could see ad blocking spun as an unauthorized derivative work.

I am a lawyer, and "circumvention of access control" means defeating DRM measures, like when you rip a CD or DVD to make a copy on your computer. Someone would have to really torture their reading of the law to come up with "writing down a domain from which ads are served is prohibited by the DMCA."

It's the part that says "impairing a technological measure without the authority of the copyright owner" that I wonder if they're testing. I agree with you, it's still a stretch (how can the list itself be a violation? it is speech)

From the page you linked to:

"...Prohibited acts therefore include descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an encrypted work, or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating or impairing a technological measure without the authority of the copyright owner..."

It likely wasn't functionalclam.com itself that filed the request. Rather, the owner of a site that uses some ad tech hosted there is likely claiming that EasyList is aiding in the impairment of a technological measure they implemented, which according to this interpretation, is a violation of the DMCA.

It would likely be an interesting court battle, but apparently isn't one that the EasyList folks are willing to defend at the moment.

I wonder how it would hold up in court, since EasyList is just a list, not the technology itself (like uBlock for example).

Could my comment "Everyone, please block functionalclam.com" also be subject of a DMCA takedown request then?

Anyone can send you a scary letter claiming anything at any time. Your choices are always A. Ignore it B. Delete your comment or C. Pay a lawyer $500/hour for advice.

People have trouble conceptualizing small probabilities, so that minimum threshold of choosing A and being wrong times "all the money in the world"[1] might be > $500, so it's always rational[2] to delete your comment if you don't want to schedule time with a lawyer.

[1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_o...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging

So in other words, scary letters work because they're scary and make people scared. Sounds like the more people choose C the more these scary letters become self-fulfilling.