4 ms·
I wonder if a website could sue Comcast for copyright violation.
by ksk 9y ago
I wonder if a website could sue Comcast for copyright violation.
- exikyut 9y agoUnfortunately if this were to happen and it succeeded, the precedent would kill the Web Archive. :(
- Keyframe 9y agoNot necessarily. Comcast derives from your work in order to exploit it for commercial purposes. Archive does not. A significant difference.
- gpm 9y agoThe Internet Archive is undoubtedly claiming fair use, even if you suppose the works they create aren't derivative works they are still creating copies of and distributing copyrighted material, which violates copyright law absent fair use.
- votepaunchy 9y agoOr just enable HTTPS.
- Buge 9y agoHow is it copyright violation? If this is copyright violation, is it copyright violation of Comcast allowing you to download a file off the internet?
- lolc 9y agoCopyright is "all rights reserved" unless otherwise stated. By publishing a website, you don't give me the right to alter and re-publish it. Whether injecting ads into a website means a derived work was created would have to be found out in court I assume.
- regularfry 9y agoThe argument is that it creates a derivative work. The right to create derivative works is separate to the right to distribute or reproduce the content, which is how Comcast is allowed to get the original website into customers' browsers. Comcast are playing into this interpretation by adding their own license to the code they're adding.
- betterunix2 9y agoIt would open a whole can of worms. What about adding MPLS headers to packets, or performing MSS clamping? Or what about the numerous physical layer protocols that add error correction? Or the consumer routers that have parental filters, ad blocking, etc.?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoPutting a book into an envelope is not a copyright violation, and consumer routers don't redistribute to third parties.
- ksk 9y agoYeah, IMO this would be equivalent to a pass-through web-proxy that removed content (such as ads).