5 ms·

I'm confused. The HTML on a page should be automatically copyrighted to the author already. It's absolutely an expression of creative work just like a book, o

I'm confused. The HTML on a page should be automatically copyrighted to the author already. It's absolutely an expression of creative work just like a book, or software, or music. That being said, it doesn't follow that it would make it illegal for any technology or any consumer to alter a website page appearance. You are free to modify copyrighted works as long as you don't distribute that work.

jeremyjh 5y ago
I think the argument would be that a browser add-on, such as an ad-blocker, is essentially redistributing the work because it is modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it to the browser user. Of course it is really the browser user who is doing the modifying - the extension is just their tool - I'm not sure if that is the basis of the ruling.
- _fat_santa 5y ago
  The way I see it, an ad-blocker is like a bottle of white-out. Say you buy a book and take it home, inside the book you find ads on various pages so you take your bottle of white-out and mark them out. You haven't caused any copyright infringement because you're not redistributing your book that has the white-out on it.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    This puts services like Pocket or Instapaper under doubt. While in a browser the "reader mode" or an and blocker may reformat content and remove ads, etc, it's done strictly for the browser's user, the modified version is not distributed. But e.g. Pocket allows to share a "pocketed" article with all the ads and most formatting removed; they even advertise some articles on their homepage. This may count as distribution of a derived work. They of course give the credits and a link to the original, but I wonder if some publishers might be unhappy enough to challenge this.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > You haven't caused any copyright infringement because you're not redistributing your book that has the white-out on it. Even if you did… since when has distributing a used book with extra notes, highlighting, or even white-out in place been considered copyright infringement? You're selling an existing, authorized copy—even if it was later modified—not making a new one.
    - slaymaker1907 5y ago
      It probably would be relevant to copyright, but it would also be fair use as commentary/criticism rather than being a derivative work.
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      In the 9th Circuit, there's precedent that buying a book, cutting up each of those pages, and then selling them individually is derivative work. The 2nd Circuit believes that's precluded by First Sale Doctrine. (I think most people would agree that the 9th Circuit's decision is wrong, though, but it remains binding precedent in that circuit.)
- thomasahle 5y ago
  Interesting. So could I publish a modified book, by publishing a piece of software, that transforms a known book into a new book. Then the user would be doing the modification. Would that not be legal, as long as my software doesn't contain pieces of the original book copied verbatim?
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    It definitely should be legal, especially as the user would still have to get the original book to use it.
  - OlleTO 5y ago
    IANAL (and in the EU) - I believe you're not allowed to republish/redistribute the modified copy of the book. That said, your software is still legal for an end user to use on any book they own. Same thing here, if the modifications were happening on the server side and then sent to your browser that's probably not legal
  - TomasEkeli 5y ago
    rather - you could sell a pair of glasses with yellow-tinted glass that transforms how any book looks. that's perfectly fine.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I can buy a photography book and view it with super cool vintage Rayban Kalichrome sunglasses thereby altering the colors of the photographs.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    You can in some cases. Copyright law varies from country to country, check with a lawyer if you need advice, and all that... If what remains of the copyright work is less than 10% then your copy is legal. When you modify something it becomes a derived work, the question is when you have modified it enough that it is considered a unique work and not derived. Note too that trademark law can still apply. So your Harry Potter can be in trouble even if the only thing that remains is the name and the universe. (You can do a Harry Potter as the horse in your western novel)
- thomascgalvin 5y ago
  > [The ad-blocker is] modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it to the browser user But ... that's what the browser itself does. We aren't shown raw HTML, we're shown a user-friendly rendering of that HTML.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jagermo 5y ago
    Yes, but this kind of understanding can't be used by a "media" company infamous for its rag tabloids (and a former editor-in-chief fired because he fucked his employees and kept a laminated fake copy of a divorce certificate to prove that he is really, really, really not married) to force users to watch their ads. Have you no business sense??!? /s By the way, Axel Springer SE, the "media" company suing, is investing heavily into the US market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE
- jhgb 5y ago
  > is essentially redistributing the work because it is modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it to the browser user There are still only two legal entities involved - the operator of the web site, and the user displaying a page from the web site. What's the third entity that would redistribute a modified work to the user displaying a page from the web site?
- maccolgan 5y ago
  That'd mean that automated Photoshop filters would also be this same category, so would Snapchat, that doesn't make sense...
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> You are free to modify copyrighted works as long as you don't distribute that work. That's...not quite right. You are free to modify a legally owned physical copy of a copyrighted work (and to redistribute that modified copy), but you are not free to make a derivative work by copying-with-modifications, except (in the US) insofar as that falls within the bounds of fair use (and where it does, you can also distribute it.)
- guelo 5y ago
  You can make a derivative work as much as you want to, you just can't redistribute it.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > You can make a derivative work as much as you want to, you just can't redistribute it. Well, no one is likely to know if you don't redistribute it, but legally, no, you may not: 17 USC § 106: “Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [...] (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;”
    - wvenable 5y ago
      This does seem to be the correct interpretation. The consequence is that even reading a book aloud at home would be a violation of copyright. However, that would likely be defensible in court as fair use, if it came to that.
      - chii 5y ago
        > The consequence is that even reading a book aloud at home would be a violation of copyright. i would assume that the purchase of the book includes with it a right to read it out loud in a private setting, such as home. I guess it is a fuzzy line - what is the difference if i read it aloud in a very large auditorium that i own, vs publicly broadcasting it?
nprateem 5y ago
> It's absolutely an expression of creative work just like a book, or software, or music. Bollocks. It's a data markup language.
- nmstoker 5y ago
  How about the screws and bolts on an original piece of furniture? Are they excluded from the creative work because they're some sort of standard item?
- nikanj 5y ago
  So are musical notes
  - nprateem 5y ago
josefx 5y ago
> That being said, it doesn't follow that it would make it illegal for any technology or any consumer to alter a website page appearance. I think the page owners tried to argue that the page presented to the viewer was a single creative work / piece of art and that the ad blockers where defacing/misrepresenting that piece of art . As I understand the court basically decided that the final composition of the page lacked an overreaching creative process required to qualify. > The HTML on a page should be automatically copyrighted to the author already. <html> . Take that internet I own you now.
- wvenable 5y ago
  It seems the language is backwards; it's not that the HTML document is not copyrightable but rather the resulting web page constructed by your browser from that HTML which is not copyrightable.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
Modifying the HTML via a browser extension makes creates a derivative work that Axel Springer was claiming infringes on their rights as the original author. Creating the derivative work in itself would indeed not be a problem but further distribution of that derived work would be a problem. Axel Springer seems to have been arguing that it is the extension developer that is responsible for "distributing" that modified work to the user. The court seems to have decided that instead this falls under what in US law would probably be called fair use that happens after the user has received a copy of the content instead of a new content that you (using the extension) created. All very logical of course but the law is not always that logical.

jeremyjh 5y ago

I think the argument would be that a browser add-on, such as an ad-blocker, is essentially redistributing the work because it is modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it to the browser user. Of course it is really the browser user who is doing the modifying - the extension is just their tool - I'm not sure if that is the basis of the ruling.

_fat_santa 5y ago
The way I see it, an ad-blocker is like a bottle of white-out. Say you buy a book and take it home, inside the book you find ads on various pages so you take your bottle of white-out and mark them out. You haven't caused any copyright infringement because you're not redistributing your book that has the white-out on it.
- nine_k 5y ago
  This puts services like Pocket or Instapaper under doubt. While in a browser the "reader mode" or an and blocker may reformat content and remove ads, etc, it's done strictly for the browser's user, the modified version is not distributed. But e.g. Pocket allows to share a "pocketed" article with all the ads and most formatting removed; they even advertise some articles on their homepage. This may count as distribution of a derived work. They of course give the credits and a link to the original, but I wonder if some publishers might be unhappy enough to challenge this.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > You haven't caused any copyright infringement because you're not redistributing your book that has the white-out on it. Even if you did… since when has distributing a used book with extra notes, highlighting, or even white-out in place been considered copyright infringement? You're selling an existing, authorized copy—even if it was later modified—not making a new one.
  - slaymaker1907 5y ago
    It probably would be relevant to copyright, but it would also be fair use as commentary/criticism rather than being a derivative work.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    In the 9th Circuit, there's precedent that buying a book, cutting up each of those pages, and then selling them individually is derivative work. The 2nd Circuit believes that's precluded by First Sale Doctrine. (I think most people would agree that the 9th Circuit's decision is wrong, though, but it remains binding precedent in that circuit.)
thomasahle 5y ago
Interesting. So could I publish a modified book, by publishing a piece of software, that transforms a known book into a new book. Then the user would be doing the modification. Would that not be legal, as long as my software doesn't contain pieces of the original book copied verbatim?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  It definitely should be legal, especially as the user would still have to get the original book to use it.
- OlleTO 5y ago
  IANAL (and in the EU) - I believe you're not allowed to republish/redistribute the modified copy of the book. That said, your software is still legal for an end user to use on any book they own. Same thing here, if the modifications were happening on the server side and then sent to your browser that's probably not legal
- TomasEkeli 5y ago
  rather - you could sell a pair of glasses with yellow-tinted glass that transforms how any book looks. that's perfectly fine.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I can buy a photography book and view it with super cool vintage Rayban Kalichrome sunglasses thereby altering the colors of the photographs.
- bluGill 5y ago
  You can in some cases. Copyright law varies from country to country, check with a lawyer if you need advice, and all that... If what remains of the copyright work is less than 10% then your copy is legal. When you modify something it becomes a derived work, the question is when you have modified it enough that it is considered a unique work and not derived. Note too that trademark law can still apply. So your Harry Potter can be in trouble even if the only thing that remains is the name and the universe. (You can do a Harry Potter as the horse in your western novel)
thomascgalvin 5y ago
> [The ad-blocker is] modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it to the browser user But ... that's what the browser itself does. We aren't shown raw HTML, we're shown a user-friendly rendering of that HTML.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jagermo 5y ago
  Yes, but this kind of understanding can't be used by a "media" company infamous for its rag tabloids (and a former editor-in-chief fired because he fucked his employees and kept a laminated fake copy of a divorce certificate to prove that he is really, really, really not married) to force users to watch their ads. Have you no business sense??!? /s By the way, Axel Springer SE, the "media" company suing, is investing heavily into the US market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE
jhgb 5y ago
> is essentially redistributing the work because it is modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it to the browser user There are still only two legal entities involved - the operator of the web site, and the user displaying a page from the web site. What's the third entity that would redistribute a modified work to the user displaying a page from the web site?
maccolgan 5y ago
That'd mean that automated Photoshop filters would also be this same category, so would Snapchat, that doesn't make sense...
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> You are free to modify copyrighted works as long as you don't distribute that work. That's...not quite right. You are free to modify a legally owned physical copy of a copyrighted work (and to redistribute that modified copy), but you are not free to make a derivative work by copying-with-modifications, except (in the US) insofar as that falls within the bounds of fair use (and where it does, you can also distribute it.)

guelo 5y ago
You can make a derivative work as much as you want to, you just can't redistribute it.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > You can make a derivative work as much as you want to, you just can't redistribute it. Well, no one is likely to know if you don't redistribute it, but legally, no, you may not: 17 USC § 106: “Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [...] (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;”
  - wvenable 5y ago
    This does seem to be the correct interpretation. The consequence is that even reading a book aloud at home would be a violation of copyright. However, that would likely be defensible in court as fair use, if it came to that.
    - chii 5y ago
      > The consequence is that even reading a book aloud at home would be a violation of copyright. i would assume that the purchase of the book includes with it a right to read it out loud in a private setting, such as home. I guess it is a fuzzy line - what is the difference if i read it aloud in a very large auditorium that i own, vs publicly broadcasting it?

nprateem 5y ago

> It's absolutely an expression of creative work just like a book, or software, or music. Bollocks. It's a data markup language.

nmstoker 5y ago
How about the screws and bolts on an original piece of furniture? Are they excluded from the creative work because they're some sort of standard item?
nikanj 5y ago
So are musical notes
- nprateem 5y ago

josefx 5y ago

> That being said, it doesn't follow that it would make it illegal for any technology or any consumer to alter a website page appearance. I think the page owners tried to argue that the page presented to the viewer was a single creative work / piece of art and that the ad blockers where defacing/misrepresenting that piece of art . As I understand the court basically decided that the final composition of the page lacked an overreaching creative process required to qualify. > The HTML on a page should be automatically copyrighted to the author already. <html> . Take that internet I own you now.

wvenable 5y ago
It seems the language is backwards; it's not that the HTML document is not copyrightable but rather the resulting web page constructed by your browser from that HTML which is not copyrightable.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

Modifying the HTML via a browser extension makes creates a derivative work that Axel Springer was claiming infringes on their rights as the original author. Creating the derivative work in itself would indeed not be a problem but further distribution of that derived work would be a problem. Axel Springer seems to have been arguing that it is the extension developer that is responsible for "distributing" that modified work to the user. The court seems to have decided that instead this falls under what in US law would probably be called fair use that happens after the user has received a copy of the content instead of a new content that you (using the extension) created. All very logical of course but the law is not always that logical.