3 ms·

That sounds like Reader View. I don’t think copyright law requires rendering the entire webpage exactly as the server requests.

by hahajk 8y ago

zelon88 8y ago
I see no difference between visiting a webpage with a browser or through a program which modifies the content prior to delivery. That's exactly what any a browser plugin does.
- xiphias2 8y ago
  The big difference is that if the program is run on the server of somebody else, it needs rights for redistribution (copyright) for the redistributor server, which is a different entity than you (who is running the local program).
  - throwaway400 8y ago
    Exactly, people want to make this a simple case (outline is really just a browser by a different name) but copyright isn't a bright line domain: intent matters and outline is just re-hosting other peoples content for broad consumption.
  - lixtra 8y ago
    This would be true for every switch on the route.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Those have an implied license by the copyright holder.
    - acdha 8y ago
      Those don't modify or cache the content, only serve it to the user which the publisher approved serving it to, and increasingly with HTTPS they can't even see it. Moreover, the publisher is implicitly accepting that by being on the Internet.
      - posterboy 8y ago
        Of course a lot of content is cached along the route, for frequent access urls.
        acdha 8y ago
        Not by network hardware, which is the context of this discussion. It's also not the type of activity being discussed, which is unauthorized caching: a content provider who uses a CDN is doing so intentionally and while shared local proxies are increasingly uncommon they also respect the Cache-Control headers set by the source — see e.g. https://redbot.org/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com https://redbot.org/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com — so again there's the distinguishing factor of authorization.
        posterboy 8y ago
        I'm absolutely foggy about the specifics, but I wasn't talking about CDN, rather about the ISP-side.

That sounds like Reader View. I don’t think copyright law requires rendering the entire webpage exactly as the server requests.

by hahajk 8y ago

That sounds like Reader View. I don’t think copyright law requires rendering the entire webpage exactly as the server requests.

zelon88 8y ago

I see no difference between visiting a webpage with a browser or through a program which modifies the content prior to delivery. That's exactly what any a browser plugin does.

xiphias2 8y ago
The big difference is that if the program is run on the server of somebody else, it needs rights for redistribution (copyright) for the redistributor server, which is a different entity than you (who is running the local program).
- throwaway400 8y ago
  Exactly, people want to make this a simple case (outline is really just a browser by a different name) but copyright isn't a bright line domain: intent matters and outline is just re-hosting other peoples content for broad consumption.
- lixtra 8y ago
  This would be true for every switch on the route.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Those have an implied license by the copyright holder.
  - acdha 8y ago
    Those don't modify or cache the content, only serve it to the user which the publisher approved serving it to, and increasingly with HTTPS they can't even see it. Moreover, the publisher is implicitly accepting that by being on the Internet.
    - posterboy 8y ago
      Of course a lot of content is cached along the route, for frequent access urls.
      - acdha 8y ago
        Not by network hardware, which is the context of this discussion. It's also not the type of activity being discussed, which is unauthorized caching: a content provider who uses a CDN is doing so intentionally and while shared local proxies are increasingly uncommon they also respect the Cache-Control headers set by the source — see e.g. https://redbot.org/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com https://redbot.org/?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com — so again there's the distinguishing factor of authorization.
        posterboy 8y ago
        I'm absolutely foggy about the specifics, but I wasn't talking about CDN, rather about the ISP-side.