7 ms·

I think this is actually illegal. If you own the copyright for your content and they inject into it, they are creating a derived work without your permission.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
motles 11y ago
doesn't all music sampling rely on the fact that creating derived works without permission is completely legal?
- a_bonobo 11y ago
  To use a sample you have to get a license from the original artist: >Today, most mainstream acts obtain prior authorization to use samples, a process known as "clearing" (gaining permission to use the sample and, usually, paying an up-front fee and/or a cut of the royalties to the original artist). Independent bands, lacking the funds and legal assistance to clear samples, are at a disadvantage - unless they seek the services of a professional sample replay company or producer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music...
- mcav 11y ago
  A sample could fall under fair use.
  - laumars 11y ago
    It doesn't. Sampling is technically illegal. However the bootleg market is often too small to go noticed and larger artists get authorisation before sampling (or at the very least - releasing). You do often see some artists turn a blind eye to sampling though. Particularly dance artists because many of them know their entire genre exists of the back of sampling. So it would be counterproductive / hypocritical for them to chase after royalties
    - decode 11y ago
      It's not quite that clear-cut: Sample clearance is generally not required if: - You are just using the sampled music at home. - You are using the sample in live shows. This is because, usually, you are not making copies and the owner of the venue pays the blanket license fees to performing rights organizations such as Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) or American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP). - You plan to distribute copies to the public but meet one of the following: (1) an average listener would not notice the similarities between your end product and the sample, or (2) your use of the sample falls under the "fair use" doctrine. For more information on these, see "Defending a Lack of Sample Clearance," below. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-music-sample-clearance-30165.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-mu...
- coldtea 11y ago
  Was that ironic? All music sampling of commercial works is illegal without a license. Even a non-recognisable 2 second snippet, if spotted, can get you huge fines.
- 7Z7 11y ago
  Sampling without permission of the author/copyright-holder(s) is not remotely legal.
- PepeGomez 11y ago
  Sampling isn't legal anymore.
userbinator 11y ago
I would hope not, because by a similar argument adblockers and userscripts would also be illegal. I don't agree with what Comcast is doing, but using this argument could end up with an even worse slippery slope that leads to users not being able to consume content/customise their computing environment in the way they choose to. On the other hand, if Comcast is your ISP, all your traffic does pass through equipment owned by Comcast, which --- if you believe in being able to have control over your devices --- they should likewise also have the right to control. All the traffic on my home network goes through an adblocking proxy, and I could do things like http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html if I really wanted to. I certainly do want to maintain control over the traffic within my network.
- mcv 11y ago
  That happens at the user's choice at the user's machine, and isn't being distributed any further. The ISP distributes this modified content to their "customers".
  - strictnein 11y ago
    Pretty sure that Comcast's ToS allows this and more.
    - fancyketchup 11y ago
      Maybe, but that's a different argument than this thread, which is about copyright.
    - mcv 11y ago
      Doesn't matter. I strongly doubt Comcast allowing themselves to violate non-customers' copyright in their ToS can possibly hold up in court.
    - boomlinde 11y ago
      Are Comcast's ToS universally agreed on by every provider of internet services? If not, it's not allowed by its ToS.
buro9 11y ago
I wonder what the legal implication is if a site is sending the "Cache-Control: no-transform;" header with it's clear text content.
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  No legal implications are associated with such tags.
  - buro9 11y ago
    Are you a lawyer? I'm sure a content publisher could argue that by stating that the transport layer does not transform the content, that any such transformation (that the end user perceives) constitutes harm to them. Such is law. That header gives them a basis for constructing this argument.
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
      Are you really proposing that protocol messages constitute binding contracts?
wyldfire 11y ago
I don't think you understood the post (admittedly the title is unclear). If the title were "Comcast injects ... to show notices of reported copyright infringement against their account," there would probably be less confusion in the comments here.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

motles 11y ago

doesn't all music sampling rely on the fact that creating derived works without permission is completely legal?

a_bonobo 11y ago
To use a sample you have to get a license from the original artist: >Today, most mainstream acts obtain prior authorization to use samples, a process known as "clearing" (gaining permission to use the sample and, usually, paying an up-front fee and/or a cut of the royalties to the original artist). Independent bands, lacking the funds and legal assistance to clear samples, are at a disadvantage - unless they seek the services of a professional sample replay company or producer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music_sampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music...
mcav 11y ago
A sample could fall under fair use.
- laumars 11y ago
  It doesn't. Sampling is technically illegal. However the bootleg market is often too small to go noticed and larger artists get authorisation before sampling (or at the very least - releasing). You do often see some artists turn a blind eye to sampling though. Particularly dance artists because many of them know their entire genre exists of the back of sampling. So it would be counterproductive / hypocritical for them to chase after royalties
  - decode 11y ago
    It's not quite that clear-cut: Sample clearance is generally not required if: - You are just using the sampled music at home. - You are using the sample in live shows. This is because, usually, you are not making copies and the owner of the venue pays the blanket license fees to performing rights organizations such as Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) or American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP). - You plan to distribute copies to the public but meet one of the following: (1) an average listener would not notice the similarities between your end product and the sample, or (2) your use of the sample falls under the "fair use" doctrine. For more information on these, see "Defending a Lack of Sample Clearance," below. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-music-sample-clearance-30165.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-mu...
coldtea 11y ago
Was that ironic? All music sampling of commercial works is illegal without a license. Even a non-recognisable 2 second snippet, if spotted, can get you huge fines.
7Z7 11y ago
Sampling without permission of the author/copyright-holder(s) is not remotely legal.
PepeGomez 11y ago
Sampling isn't legal anymore.

userbinator 11y ago

I would hope not, because by a similar argument adblockers and userscripts would also be illegal. I don't agree with what Comcast is doing, but using this argument could end up with an even worse slippery slope that leads to users not being able to consume content/customise their computing environment in the way they choose to. On the other hand, if Comcast is your ISP, all your traffic does pass through equipment owned by Comcast, which --- if you believe in being able to have control over your devices --- they should likewise also have the right to control. All the traffic on my home network goes through an adblocking proxy, and I could do things like http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html if I really wanted to. I certainly do want to maintain control over the traffic within my network.

mcv 11y ago
That happens at the user's choice at the user's machine, and isn't being distributed any further. The ISP distributes this modified content to their "customers".
- strictnein 11y ago
  Pretty sure that Comcast's ToS allows this and more.
  - fancyketchup 11y ago
    Maybe, but that's a different argument than this thread, which is about copyright.
  - mcv 11y ago
    Doesn't matter. I strongly doubt Comcast allowing themselves to violate non-customers' copyright in their ToS can possibly hold up in court.
  - boomlinde 11y ago
    Are Comcast's ToS universally agreed on by every provider of internet services? If not, it's not allowed by its ToS.

buro9 11y ago

I wonder what the legal implication is if a site is sending the "Cache-Control: no-transform;" header with it's clear text content.

spacemanmatt 11y ago
No legal implications are associated with such tags.
- buro9 11y ago
  Are you a lawyer? I'm sure a content publisher could argue that by stating that the transport layer does not transform the content, that any such transformation (that the end user perceives) constitutes harm to them. Such is law. That header gives them a basis for constructing this argument.
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    Are you really proposing that protocol messages constitute binding contracts?

wyldfire 11y ago

I don't think you understood the post (admittedly the title is unclear). If the title were "Comcast injects ... to show notices of reported copyright infringement against their account," there would probably be less confusion in the comments here.