3 ms·

I think it would be a humongous stretch to say it's defacement. The server client model is the important factor I think here. A server sends data to the client

by habitue 17y ago

I think it would be a humongous stretch to say it's defacement. The server client model is the important factor I think here. A server sends data to the client to display in a manner it chooses fit. If a browser chooses not to request certain content, or chooses not to display it to the user, there is no defacement going on. If it is legal for there to be rendering differences at all between browsers, I think adblock fits into that gap as well. As you said however, who knows what crazy justification they will come up with, and what the courts will buy.

darien 17y ago
I definitely agree with you. Right now I'm trying to get into their argumentative mindset. I think web properties can argue that their copyright extends to HOW the content is displayed. This point is furthered if online sites can prove that their site is generated dynamically based on specific browsers. If they can argue that they manually create different (authorized) versions for different configurations (1 configuration for each browser, os and monitor type), and that all of those configurations contain ads. The courts may find that any configurations outside the site's authorized versions are unauthorized, an infringement of copyright and illegal. To me it almost makes sense. Thoughts?
- DEinspanjer 17y ago
  If the web properties could successfully argue that their copyright extends to how the content is displayed, I think it is likely they could get a lot more bang for their buck by suing Microsoft for the mangled content that comes out of the many millions of IE 6 browsers still being used out there. :) That said, I highly doubt either lawsuit has much of a leg to stand on. Content transformation is a long standing and tacitly accepted feature of web protocols. Caching, zooming, and even assistant technologies such as a screen or braille reader would run afoul this argument.

by habitue 17y ago

darien 17y ago

I definitely agree with you. Right now I'm trying to get into their argumentative mindset. I think web properties can argue that their copyright extends to HOW the content is displayed. This point is furthered if online sites can prove that their site is generated dynamically based on specific browsers. If they can argue that they manually create different (authorized) versions for different configurations (1 configuration for each browser, os and monitor type), and that all of those configurations contain ads. The courts may find that any configurations outside the site's authorized versions are unauthorized, an infringement of copyright and illegal. To me it almost makes sense. Thoughts?

DEinspanjer 17y ago
If the web properties could successfully argue that their copyright extends to how the content is displayed, I think it is likely they could get a lot more bang for their buck by suing Microsoft for the mangled content that comes out of the many millions of IE 6 browsers still being used out there. :) That said, I highly doubt either lawsuit has much of a leg to stand on. Content transformation is a long standing and tacitly accepted feature of web protocols. Caching, zooming, and even assistant technologies such as a screen or braille reader would run afoul this argument.