4 ms·

IF Comcast had actually been legitimately trying to contact the customer via other means (phone, letter, email) AND it was a significant issue (end of life on m

IF Comcast had actually been legitimately trying to contact the customer via other means (phone, letter, email) AND it was a significant issue (end of life on modem), then it's not unreasonable. I rather doubt that Comcast tried the phone route, and the article indicates that the modem was not EOL, so overall I think the injection was ridiculous.

pdkl95 9y ago
Willful copyright infringement[1] doesn't go away if you cannot contact the recipient of the unauthorized copy by "phone letter, email". Comcast is infringing the copyright of every webpage they modify without permission. [1] Modifying an HTML file[2] (or any other protected work) creates a "derivative work"[3\. Without permission from the original author, distributing a copy of a derivative work is copyright infringement. [2] Any "original work of authorship"[4] gains copyright protection when "fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."[4]. [3] "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'."[5] [4] 17 U.S. Code § 102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [5] 17 U.S. Code § 101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101
- nkurz 9y ago
  Comcast is infringing the copyright of every webpage they modify without permission. They may or may not be, but you are foolish to assert that they are infringing based on on a few select quotes. Are you also going to assert that it's also a copyright infringement every time a browser caches part of a web page to disk, or when a user runs an script to change the layout of a page? Both arguments have been made, but as far as I know, there is no clear precedent for either. For better or worse, US law is based on case-law, and unless you can point to some previous cases where modifying a web page on the fly has been judged to be copyright infringement, there is nothing open-and-shut about it.
  - pdkl95 9y ago
    > you are foolish to assert that they are infringing based on on a few select quotes I only included a few quotes for reference. My argument is based on my study of copyright law over the last ~25 years. > browser caches part of a web page to disk Obviously not a derivative work as the HTML file is not changed. Also, this is a fair use that doesn't publish additional copies (and thus doesn't impact the market for the original work). > a user runs an script to change the layout of a page First Sale doctrine states that the publisher's rights do not extend to how someone uses their (legitimately acquired) copy. > there is no clear precedent for either The only part that is at all unclear are the few cases that ruled on the temporary, ephemeral copies that a computer makes during normal use. These cases all resulted in different rulings, but the most recent of which (which may only have limited precedent) came to what should be the obvious conclusion that technically necessary temporary copies were a fair use. None of this, however, is relevant to Comcast making new derivative works based other people's HTML files without a license and providing a copy of those derivative works to their customers. Providing unauthorized edited copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to be a fair use. ]
    - nkurz 9y ago
      Providing unauthorized edited copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to be a fair use. Well, it's definitely been argued, although you are right that eventually the court decided that it was not fair use to distribute "family friendly" version of movies. Perhaps counterintuitively, despite ruling strongly against CleanFlicks, the judge ruled that the because the changes were based only on redaction, the edited version was not to be considered a derivative work! https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-ruled-infringer/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-ruled-i... The Family Movie Act of 2005 further codified this right to redact, using the argument that if the edited version was only used for a "private home viewing", it did not violate the right of distribution: https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html. None of this, however, is relevant to Comcast making new derivative works based other people's HTML files without a license and providing a copy of those derivative works to their customers. Would a similar argument as to single viewer experience work in Comcast's case? I don't know, but in the absence of settled case law, I wouldn't bet against Comcast's lawyers getting a court to give the answer they want. But maybe I can make it an easier question: Based on what they've done so far, what are the chances that Comcast will be sued for copyright infringement and lose? I don't have a lot of money to bet, but I think the chances are low that successful lawsuit against Comcast will be brought for what they've done. Do you think otherwise?

pdkl95 9y ago

Willful copyright infringement[1] doesn't go away if you cannot contact the recipient of the unauthorized copy by "phone letter, email". Comcast is infringing the copyright of every webpage they modify without permission. [1] Modifying an HTML file[2] (or any other protected work) creates a "derivative work"[3\. Without permission from the original author, distributing a copy of a derivative work is copyright infringement. [2] Any "original work of authorship"[4] gains copyright protection when "fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."[4]. [3] "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work'."[5] [4] 17 U.S. Code § 102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [5] 17 U.S. Code § 101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

nkurz 9y ago
Comcast is infringing the copyright of every webpage they modify without permission. They may or may not be, but you are foolish to assert that they are infringing based on on a few select quotes. Are you also going to assert that it's also a copyright infringement every time a browser caches part of a web page to disk, or when a user runs an script to change the layout of a page? Both arguments have been made, but as far as I know, there is no clear precedent for either. For better or worse, US law is based on case-law, and unless you can point to some previous cases where modifying a web page on the fly has been judged to be copyright infringement, there is nothing open-and-shut about it.
- pdkl95 9y ago
  > you are foolish to assert that they are infringing based on on a few select quotes I only included a few quotes for reference. My argument is based on my study of copyright law over the last ~25 years. > browser caches part of a web page to disk Obviously not a derivative work as the HTML file is not changed. Also, this is a fair use that doesn't publish additional copies (and thus doesn't impact the market for the original work). > a user runs an script to change the layout of a page First Sale doctrine states that the publisher's rights do not extend to how someone uses their (legitimately acquired) copy. > there is no clear precedent for either The only part that is at all unclear are the few cases that ruled on the temporary, ephemeral copies that a computer makes during normal use. These cases all resulted in different rulings, but the most recent of which (which may only have limited precedent) came to what should be the obvious conclusion that technically necessary temporary copies were a fair use. None of this, however, is relevant to Comcast making new derivative works based other people's HTML files without a license and providing a copy of those derivative works to their customers. Providing unauthorized edited copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to be a fair use. ]
  - nkurz 9y ago
    Providing unauthorized edited copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to be a fair use. Well, it's definitely been argued, although you are right that eventually the court decided that it was not fair use to distribute "family friendly" version of movies. Perhaps counterintuitively, despite ruling strongly against CleanFlicks, the judge ruled that the because the changes were based only on redaction, the edited version was not to be considered a derivative work! https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-ruled-infringer/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-ruled-i... The Family Movie Act of 2005 further codified this right to redact, using the argument that if the edited version was only used for a "private home viewing", it did not violate the right of distribution: https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html. None of this, however, is relevant to Comcast making new derivative works based other people's HTML files without a license and providing a copy of those derivative works to their customers. Would a similar argument as to single viewer experience work in Comcast's case? I don't know, but in the absence of settled case law, I wouldn't bet against Comcast's lawyers getting a court to give the answer they want. But maybe I can make it an easier question: Based on what they've done so far, what are the chances that Comcast will be sued for copyright infringement and lose? I don't have a lot of money to bet, but I think the chances are low that successful lawsuit against Comcast will be brought for what they've done. Do you think otherwise?