3 ms·
MS had to add content to the page then render that new content. That would count as a derivative work which would be covered by copyright. Normally, when a use
by hajile 4y ago
MS had to add content to the page then render that new content. That would count as a derivative work which would be covered by copyright.
Normally, when a user does this themselves, it isn't for commercial purposes which puts it in a different category (plus, the most popular modification involves stuff from loading onto a device rather than modifying the stuff that was loaded). This is far different in intent.
- ethbr0 4y agoBy this logic, no one would be able to serve banner ads on top of copywritten content. Plenty of existing and historical malware browsers and plugins have injected ads. Furthermore, because it's a full page width banner, it's not entirely clear whether Edge is rending something next to Google's page (i.e. in MS' browser) or in Google's page (i.e. commingled with their content).
- midoridensha 4y agoI think your logic is flawed. Banner ads are explicitly permitted by the web site operator (they get paid for them after all). Plugins aren't permitted by the web site operator, however they are permitted by the user, who has to explicitly approve installation of the plugin. Same with malware browsers: the users chose those. Of course, the users were ignorant and clicked on something they shouldn't have, but still it's ultimately their own fault: they opted in. It's different with Microsoft: MS never asked for users' permission to change content, nor did users ever expect it.
- ethbr0 4y agoHow do you get from 'users opted into malware browsers/plugins' to 'users didn't opt-in to Edge/Windows'?
- midoridensha 4y agoEdge comes with Windows, and users pick Windows because it's the default choice and basically a monopoly for PC operating systems.
- 1123581321 4y agoI don't think a browser render counts as creating potentially infringing content. I'm at a loss to explain why but I think it's the ephemerality of a browser render and the lack of a distribution method. Where are you getting the idea that infringement is possible at all by the browser itself, regardless of fair use laws?