3 ms·

Had Axel Springer won the case, it sounds like it would have become illegal to scribble marginalia, highlight, or otherwise alter the copyrighted content of boo

• rsstack 5y ago
  Not really. They're claiming that it isn't the _user_ that's scribbling on the HTML page, which is why their HTML (their customers' HTML specifically) is different from books. Perhaps it would have limited libraries from re-lending books that a patron scribbled on. But not automatically, it would require a second court case.
• tgtweak 5y ago
  They were trying to make the argument that they html was copyright and thus modifying and redistributing it (IE removing the ads) without license was infringing. The entirety of the consideration was whether programmatically removing ads in the page before serving it to the user consisted of redistribution or reproduction. Definitely a stretch attempt at interpretation but not surprising and not at all unreasonable. Your analogy isn't fully sane - You bought the book you're scribbling in, and have the right to deface that copy as you please, and even resell that copy. You may not reprint it with a word whited out and offer it for reproduction or distribution as your own. This side of copyright law is very well established and not ambiguous.