4 ms·

> I should be able to send whatever bytes I want through the network, and have them arrive at their destination verbatim. It's copyright violation to modify co

> I should be able to send whatever bytes I want through the network, and have them arrive at their destination verbatim. It's copyright violation to modify copyrighted content before delivery without permission, especially when it's commercial content (ads) that is being injected. Maybe lawsuits could stop it. Other examples from the US: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2925839/net-neutrality/code-injection-new-low-isps.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/2925839/net-neutrality/cod... https://techcrunch.com/2012/04/06/now-you-know-hotels-inject-banner-ads-into-the-wi-fi-they-charge-you-for/ https://techcrunch.com/2012/04/06/now-you-know-hotels-inject...

userbinator 9y ago
It's copyright violation to modify copyrighted content before delivery without permission, especially when it's commercial content (ads) that is being injected. Ironically, a similar argument is being used against adblockers, the other "benevolent MITM" application for modifying content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990137 In other words, if those lawsuits succeed, they could set an unfortunate precedent against even personal "modification of content".
- captn3m0 9y ago
  Can't "user-consent" be a simple solution for this? I give consent to a HTTP-adblock-proxy to modify HTTP in transit.
- saurik 9y ago
  An ad blocker does not modify copyrighted content before delivery. The legal precedent set by when Nintendo tried to sue Game Genie made it pretty clear that you can use tools to modify content you already have in your possession, particularly if those modifications are in memory only and never create a modified copy on disk. Meanwhile, those two links are to something entirely unrelated: an attempt to use the DMCA to remove someone's domain name from a file (which isn't even a copyright issue, and so I have not heard anyone think that was remotely legitimate).
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  An adblocker is more like taking a marker and crossing out the ads in your own personal copy of a magazine with the marker. Modification for personal use is not copyright violation. If I publish a website -- telling the users that we do not bother them with ads -- and another company then injects ads into that page, it not only violates the copyright, but it causes damage to my website's reputation, because most users aren't knowledgeable enough about the Web to understand that the ads are not put there by the publisher. It's probably even worse for websites that allow members to pay to have ads removed.

userbinator 9y ago

It's copyright violation to modify copyrighted content before delivery without permission, especially when it's commercial content (ads) that is being injected. Ironically, a similar argument is being used against adblockers, the other "benevolent MITM" application for modifying content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990137 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990137 In other words, if those lawsuits succeed, they could set an unfortunate precedent against even personal "modification of content".

captn3m0 9y ago
Can't "user-consent" be a simple solution for this? I give consent to a HTTP-adblock-proxy to modify HTTP in transit.
saurik 9y ago
An ad blocker does not modify copyrighted content before delivery. The legal precedent set by when Nintendo tried to sue Game Genie made it pretty clear that you can use tools to modify content you already have in your possession, particularly if those modifications are in memory only and never create a modified copy on disk. Meanwhile, those two links are to something entirely unrelated: an attempt to use the DMCA to remove someone's domain name from a file (which isn't even a copyright issue, and so I have not heard anyone think that was remotely legitimate).
JoshMnem 9y ago
An adblocker is more like taking a marker and crossing out the ads in your own personal copy of a magazine with the marker. Modification for personal use is not copyright violation. If I publish a website -- telling the users that we do not bother them with ads -- and another company then injects ads into that page, it not only violates the copyright, but it causes damage to my website's reputation, because most users aren't knowledgeable enough about the Web to understand that the ads are not put there by the publisher. It's probably even worse for websites that allow members to pay to have ads removed.