3 ms·
I'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 an
by hsod 11y ago
I'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.
- dublinben 11y agoEven in the light of the (I believe incorrect) Aereo decision, it would be pretty much inconceivable for personal ad blockers to be ruled illegal. There is already semi-relevant precedent for this with movies, in the Family Entertainment Copyright Act of 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_and_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Entertainment_and_Copyr...
- msandford 11y agoThe first sale doctrine would beg to differ with you. Once I buy a work I'm free to do whatever I'd like with it, provided that I don't infringe on the copyright by making more copies. I absolutely can remove whatever I would like from it. Copyright protects publishers from unauthorized reproductions. AT&T are making an unauthorized reproduction when they insert extra things into something that isn't theirs.