5 ms·

I don't know German law, but "no derivative works" generally only applies to things you reproduce yourself. If you download a webpage, it's not copyright infrin

I don't know German law, but "no derivative works" generally only applies to things you reproduce yourself. If you download a webpage, it's not copyright infringement to hit F12 and edit a paragraph. You're not distributing a derivative copy. You're just modifying the reproduction you were implicitly licensed by the web server delivering it to you. If editing the HTML on your own machine was illegal reproduction, just viewing it would be too. (And in American law, if something is publicly viewable, they can't condition your license to additional terms you aren't required to agree to first. See hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn Corp.: https://matthewminer.name/law/briefs/Miscellaneous/hiQ+Labs+v.+LinkedIn+Corp https://matthewminer.name/law/briefs/Miscellaneous/hiQ+Labs+....)

rpdillon 5y ago
This is probably not the right thread for this, but I'm very interested in "modify without distribution" that you mention: > it's not copyright infringement to hit F12 and edit a paragraph. You're not distributing a derivative copy. You're just modifying the reproduction you were implicitly licensed by the web server delivering it to you. In particular, my understanding (IANAL) is that modifying a copyrighted work, _even without distribution_, is still an infringement. At least, that's the way the Copyright Alliance frames it[0]. I think this has no practical effect because it's unenforceable (how can you detect the derivative work if it wasn't distributed?) But it does open the door to the related question: what if I distribute a program that modifies copyrighted works for others? This case tested that in Germany, but it seems to be far-from-straightforward based on my 5 minutes of searching around about it. Most copyright sites don't deal with this case at all (copyright.gov, harvard.edu, etc.) but I did find a related question[1] on Quora that seems to have thoughtful answers, but it's hard for me to read through them and feel like I really understand the risks. [0]: https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-owners-have/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-own... [1]: https://www.quora.com/Is-distributing-a-file-that-modifies-a-copyrighted-work-illegal https://www.quora.com/Is-distributing-a-file-that-modifies-a...
- mminer237 5y ago
  Eh, yeah, I guess there could be a debate about that. Technically, some court might find that any modification to a copyrighted work results in the creation of a derivative work; but without distribution, it's pretty clearly fair use still I'd think. The most relevant case I know of is Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992). Nintendo sued sued the maker of Game Genie for contributing to infringement by letting people essentially edit their games in memory. The court said that just being in memory isn't a fixed medium for it to count as a derivative work, saying that editing something in memory was akin to shining a kaleidoscope on a painting and therefore not infringment. However, I think this requirement of a derivative being "concrete" is something the California judges largely just made up. But even if it was infringement, the court still said it was fair use because it was for a non-commercial purpose and couldn't have any negative effects on game sales, the 1st and 4th factors involved in fair use under 17 USC § 107.
  - rpdillon 5y ago
    I almost missed this followup...I had no idea about that case. I like the reasoning (the kaleidoscope analogy seems apt!), and it seems to apply directly to cases like ublock origin, where the page is modified in memory. Thanks!

rpdillon 5y ago

This is probably not the right thread for this, but I'm very interested in "modify without distribution" that you mention: > it's not copyright infringement to hit F12 and edit a paragraph. You're not distributing a derivative copy. You're just modifying the reproduction you were implicitly licensed by the web server delivering it to you. In particular, my understanding (IANAL) is that modifying a copyrighted work, _even without distribution_, is still an infringement. At least, that's the way the Copyright Alliance frames it[0]. I think this has no practical effect because it's unenforceable (how can you detect the derivative work if it wasn't distributed?) But it does open the door to the related question: what if I distribute a program that modifies copyrighted works for others? This case tested that in Germany, but it seems to be far-from-straightforward based on my 5 minutes of searching around about it. Most copyright sites don't deal with this case at all (copyright.gov, harvard.edu, etc.) but I did find a related question[1] on Quora that seems to have thoughtful answers, but it's hard for me to read through them and feel like I really understand the risks. [0]: https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-owners-have/ https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-rights-copyright-own... [1]: https://www.quora.com/Is-distributing-a-file-that-modifies-a-copyrighted-work-illegal https://www.quora.com/Is-distributing-a-file-that-modifies-a...

mminer237 5y ago
Eh, yeah, I guess there could be a debate about that. Technically, some court might find that any modification to a copyrighted work results in the creation of a derivative work; but without distribution, it's pretty clearly fair use still I'd think. The most relevant case I know of is Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 964 F.2d 965 (9th Cir. 1992). Nintendo sued sued the maker of Game Genie for contributing to infringement by letting people essentially edit their games in memory. The court said that just being in memory isn't a fixed medium for it to count as a derivative work, saying that editing something in memory was akin to shining a kaleidoscope on a painting and therefore not infringment. However, I think this requirement of a derivative being "concrete" is something the California judges largely just made up. But even if it was infringement, the court still said it was fair use because it was for a non-commercial purpose and couldn't have any negative effects on game sales, the 1st and 4th factors involved in fair use under 17 USC § 107.
- rpdillon 5y ago
  I almost missed this followup...I had no idea about that case. I like the reasoning (the kaleidoscope analogy seems apt!), and it seems to apply directly to cases like ublock origin, where the page is modified in memory. Thanks!