4 ms·
IANAL, but I don't see how this sort of thing doesn't count as copyright violation on a massive scale. The users probably agree to it in a terms of service, bu
by georgemcbay 11y ago
IANAL, but I don't see how this sort of thing doesn't count as copyright violation on a massive scale.
The users probably agree to it in a terms of service, but the served websites do not, and AT&T is creating what logically seems like a highly derivative (but altered) copy of their content with their own content inserted without permission of the original copyright owners.
While some amount of data rewriting is inherent in the nature of how the Internet works, modifying the content of web page bodies to insert advertisements just feels like it steps way, way over the lines of that, especially when it can easily present situations where you have ads selling products that would be vehemently opposed by the people whose site it seems to be appearing on to the average user.
- threatofrain 11y agoI also think this could affect the image or experience of a company or entity, since people might not know this is ATT's doing. In the examples provided, one might think this was an action of Stanford.
- JustSomeNobody 11y agoExactly. Looking at the video linked in the article, RaGaPa shows what ads on Google's home page might look like. Surely Google doesn't want to be associated with certain products that way?
- rayiner 11y agoYeah, the copyright and trademark issues here make this seem pretty risky.
- bpodgursky 11y agoIf you get this declared copyright violation, there will be very solid precedent for banning all adblockers as well.
- msandford 11y agoLet's discuss the difference. This is as though AT&T printed magazines written by others and advertised in by others, and inserted their own extra advertisements in addition. So they take a 90 page magazine and add an extra 10 pages of ads. Clearly not kosher as they don't have the rights to the articles, ads, or anything. But they're trying to sell it at the AT&T newsstand as though it's the original. Now suppose that I buy a magazine, and the first thing I do is page through it quickly and rip out all the ads. That's legit right? Once I own it, I can do whatever I want with it. Now suppose I -- after purchasing the magazine -- convince my friend to rip out all the ads for me, before I ever see any of them. Still OK isn't it? I hope the parallels make it easy to see that what you do with the content once it reaches your computer are very different than what other 3rd parties do to content while it's in transit.
- hsod 11y agoI'm not convinced. Your distinction makes this all about you, when in fact it's more about the publisher. As far as the publisher is concerned, your friend and AT&T might as well be the same person. Both are taking a copyrighted work from the publisher, altering it materially, and presenting it to you. AT&T is not selling the work, they are delivering it. If one is a copyright violation, both are.
- dublinben 11y agoTransforming a work on your own computer, and then viewing it is not copyright infringement. There is no transmission of another copy being performed. Without that, you don't have copyright infringement.
- bpodgursky 11y agoWhat you are describing is an engineering answer, not a legal perspective. As the Supreme Court made clear in the aero case, intent and impact is far more important than technical details about transmission.
- Animats 11y ago"The users probably agree to it in a terms of service" No, they didn't. See the link above to the terms of service.