FF won't let me install BPC extension (lemmy.zip)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by ReedReads@lemmy.zip to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Looking for help here. I created a new Firefox profile and wanted to load the Bypass Paywalls Clean Add-on/Extension from the XPI file. So I did what I've always done and got the message displayed above.

Then I went into about:config and changed both xpinstall.whitelist.required and xpinstall.signatures.required to false. Fully exited and restarted the browser but still, no dice.

Anyone know how to fix this?

SOLUTION: go to extensions.blocklist.enabled and turn it to false

top 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 5 points 2 weeks ago

Oh they're actively deciding what you can do with the software now. Cool. Love that.

[-] kirk781@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 weeks ago

I don't understand why Mozilla is so smitten with this extension. They already removed it from AMO, why are policing it now. A tiny minority of folks use Firefox(as a percentage of market share) worldwide and only some part of it use this extension. Why go after it so hard?

They are policing it today, tomorrow they may say uBlock Origin violates our policies as well. Sure, technically one might be able to install via changing about:config toggle but that's a bridge too far for most users.

It might seem I am making a huge mental jump for equating a paywall bypass extension to an adblocker extension, but in the eyes of corporations, both kind of users are equally loathed by them.

[-] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago

The purpose of this add-on is solely to circumvent access restrictions to copyrighted works. It is clearly a circumvention tool under the DMCA and therefore illegal to distribute in the USA.

The policy violation is that it breaks US law.

Guessing here, but Mozilla likely blacklisted it to disable it for all those who had it installed and cover their ass legally. Nobody can accuse them of aiding in the distribution of this illegal tool anymore.

While uBlock could be used for the same thing, it has a different primary use (blocking ads, which is still legal), so a similar charge against it might be successfully fought.

The DMCA is a fuck.

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

But even then, they're only liable if they distribute it themselves. Why go the extra mile of blocking the addon being sideloaded, as it's solely done by the user?

[-] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

My guess: The blocklist is the only way they have of removing it for all those who download it from them when they previously distributed it. And they do that so they can not be held liable for those copies.

A company like News Corp might go "This was downloaded 50 000 times from you and can be used to bypass access control on 10 000 000 of our articles which would otherwise cost $20 each. So we are suing you for 10 trillion dollars in losses. See you in court."

[-] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 2 points 2 weeks ago

If they didn't have safeguarding in place, I'd be more worried. As with all things Firefox, it can be overridden.

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

"This isn't safe" is very different from "I've arbitrarily decided you shouldn't be able to use that"

[-] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip -1 points 2 weeks ago

Except it isn't arbitrary, as a US company they are forced to remove it because of the DMCA

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

It's not something they're hosting, what do you mean forced to remove it

[-] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

they are, the addon is hosted on addons.mozilla.org, and by default forefox doesnt allow extensioms not on there for security reasons

[-] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That doesn't at all look like what's happening in the above image. It obviously isn't being installed from addons.mozilla.org because they wouldn't be hosting it. And the pop-up says it can't be installed because it "violates Mozilla's policies" not due to security issues or because it's not from their extensions gallery.

[-] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, it can technically be served from a button in another website, but it has to go through mozilla for firefox to accept to install it, I did misspeak in my original comment.

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 weeks ago

??? None of this has anything to do with anything mozilla runs. Mozilla has nothing to do with me installing an extension from a file. This is like a car manufacturer preventing you from bringing library books into a car you bought.

[-] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 weeks ago

Except the library book won't record all your conversations in the car and where you go.

Think of how stupid the average user is, and how easy it would be to get them to install any random extension from a malware site.

I genuinely think it's reasonable to prevent users from installing non-mozilla approved extensions unless they go in about:config.

[-] pixeltree@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 weeks ago

From a safety thing, I get it, and I'm pretty sure you have to enable something to allow you to install extensions from files. This isn't that, this is seperate from that. This is mozilla determining what you are and aren't allowed to add, and that's not ok.

[-] Blisterexe@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

Mozilla is legally required to not facilitate installation of extensions like that, that's why it's blocked

[-] Soot@hexbear.net 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

A blocklist for malware would be safeguarding. But you can't claim this is "safeguarding" against.. completely safe software?

And it's not exactly easily overridden, otherwise this post wouldn't exist.

Sadly, there a few annoying things in Firefox which absolutely are not overridable at all. Firefox is heckin' awesome, but this just ain't true.

[-] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's an unverified extension and an about:config variable

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

It is a safequard against getting sued.

The addon is in their store after all.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 weeks ago

This isnt news tho, its been banned for years.

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

You can also use this filter list in uBlock Origin as an alternative

https://gitflic.ru/project/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-clean-filters/blob/raw?file=bpc-paywall-filter.txt

[-] FuCensorship@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

As BPC adds new sites to its list, it makes Firefox ask the user to accept access to those which can get annoying. Not to mention the developer keeps getting banned everywhere he puts it and you gotta hunt where the new updated extension is.

So my question is, does the list on uBlockO works as well as the extension?

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

I would have to do a one-for-one comparison, I haven't checked that.

[-] FuCensorship@lemmy.today 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, I just asked because I remember with the "I don't care about cookies" that got sold to Avast there was also a uBo list but I remember still seeing cookie banners that would not show with the extention.