4 ms·

> So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. That seems absurd. I just reject their request to

by tazjin 4y ago

> So when you modify the web page with adding new styles or blocking a web request you violate the copyright. That seems absurd. I just reject their request to fetch some _additional_ information, I don't modify the "text of their request" as such. If that breaks their sites (as it usually does), that's their problem - not mine.

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
I will entertain their terms so long as they agree to a contract stipulating terms for executing code on my computer.
- evnix 4y ago
  This! it is your machine at the end of the day. we should have an option not to use a company or their services which they are forcing on us. I had a neighbor who was sent an invoice, he had cancelled his internet connection 3 months ago and was later told they need a cancellation request in writing. so he sent an equivalent invoice to them asking for rent for their modem which was consuming place in his house. he did not have to pay in the end.
- mindslight 4y ago
  This sounds clever, but it's actually diametrically opposed to the protocol model. The problem is companies push unilateral contracts of adhesion that you're "free" to take or leave. So if the contract regime ruled computer interactions (as "remote attestation" is poised to do) then you'd find yourself at the pointy end of a new stick. It's the same reason US privacy regulation is doomed to failure unless it frames consent the same way the GDPR did. Not merely as something that is given once (and then vectoralized/sold), but rather something that needs to be given on an ongoing basis and can be withdrawn at any time.
epicide 4y ago
Right. If I request they snail mail me a copy of some document, they are free to reject the request. However, if they send me the document, I am free to tear off pieces or color on it with crayons.
- jetbalsa 4y ago
  There are edge cases to that, Mostly if the document was government related (Money, Official Documents)
  - p_l 4y ago
    And those do not fall under copyright.
  - epicide 4y ago
    Excellent point. I'd say there are edge cases to viewing a website too, but the claiming the general case falls under some sort of copyright-adjacent protection is bunk. A bit more nuanced: not loading in the ad on a news site is akin to ripping out and throwing away the subscription card in the magazine. The contents of each might be subject to copyright, but that doesn't invalidate my right to separate them once delivered to me.
webmobdev 4y ago
That's a good argument. However, good adblockers also modify the page (for e.g. some websites don't render at all if the ad is not fetched and displayed, or to ensure the webpage shows properly when trackers and advertisements are blocked). We can still argue fair use, as websites can have malwares and we have the right to protect ourselves from it.
wongarsu 4y ago
And even if you did modify it, that's still not a copyright problem. It only becomes one when you distribute the modified version. Modifying something or circulating instructions on how to modify something are completely legal (unless you run into anti-hacking laws).
- charcircuit 4y ago
  No, modifying a copyrighted work still requires permission from the copyrighted holder since you are creating a derivative work.
  - wudu 4y ago
    So I can't modify a book I purchased (add comments, strike out words etc)?
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      No. I strongly doubt you will be sued for doing it though.
  - xoa 4y ago
    No it doesn't. Base copyright is not an EULA, it doesn't govern how someone legally in possession of a copy uses that copy. By your argument every single person in history with a book who made notes in the margin or crossed words or the like is a copyright infringer. Worse if they subsequently sold that book at a used book sale. Copyright is about distribution.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      It prevents people from creating derivative works. To quote US law. "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”."

by tazjin 4y ago

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

I will entertain their terms so long as they agree to a contract stipulating terms for executing code on my computer.

evnix 4y ago
This! it is your machine at the end of the day. we should have an option not to use a company or their services which they are forcing on us. I had a neighbor who was sent an invoice, he had cancelled his internet connection 3 months ago and was later told they need a cancellation request in writing. so he sent an equivalent invoice to them asking for rent for their modem which was consuming place in his house. he did not have to pay in the end.
mindslight 4y ago
This sounds clever, but it's actually diametrically opposed to the protocol model. The problem is companies push unilateral contracts of adhesion that you're "free" to take or leave. So if the contract regime ruled computer interactions (as "remote attestation" is poised to do) then you'd find yourself at the pointy end of a new stick. It's the same reason US privacy regulation is doomed to failure unless it frames consent the same way the GDPR did. Not merely as something that is given once (and then vectoralized/sold), but rather something that needs to be given on an ongoing basis and can be withdrawn at any time.

epicide 4y ago

Right. If I request they snail mail me a copy of some document, they are free to reject the request. However, if they send me the document, I am free to tear off pieces or color on it with crayons.

jetbalsa 4y ago
There are edge cases to that, Mostly if the document was government related (Money, Official Documents)
- p_l 4y ago
  And those do not fall under copyright.
- epicide 4y ago
  Excellent point. I'd say there are edge cases to viewing a website too, but the claiming the general case falls under some sort of copyright-adjacent protection is bunk. A bit more nuanced: not loading in the ad on a news site is akin to ripping out and throwing away the subscription card in the magazine. The contents of each might be subject to copyright, but that doesn't invalidate my right to separate them once delivered to me.

webmobdev 4y ago

That's a good argument. However, good adblockers also modify the page (for e.g. some websites don't render at all if the ad is not fetched and displayed, or to ensure the webpage shows properly when trackers and advertisements are blocked). We can still argue fair use, as websites can have malwares and we have the right to protect ourselves from it.

wongarsu 4y ago

And even if you did modify it, that's still not a copyright problem. It only becomes one when you distribute the modified version. Modifying something or circulating instructions on how to modify something are completely legal (unless you run into anti-hacking laws).

charcircuit 4y ago
No, modifying a copyrighted work still requires permission from the copyrighted holder since you are creating a derivative work.
- wudu 4y ago
  So I can't modify a book I purchased (add comments, strike out words etc)?
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    No. I strongly doubt you will be sued for doing it though.
- xoa 4y ago
  No it doesn't. Base copyright is not an EULA, it doesn't govern how someone legally in possession of a copy uses that copy. By your argument every single person in history with a book who made notes in the margin or crossed words or the like is a copyright infringer. Worse if they subsequently sold that book at a used book sale. Copyright is about distribution.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    It prevents people from creating derivative works. To quote US law. "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”."