| Questionable Legality If you are adding ads to a website, wouldn't this be a 'derivative' work? (And for profit!)
And since the copyright holder must approve/ be compensated for derivative works, wouldn't this be illegal under copyright law? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Look at the screen caps, the ads aren't "in" the copyrighted pages. |
|
| Yes, I agree they are not 'in' the copyrighted pages. Good point.
However, they do change the presentation of the webpage. And the presentation of the website is very carefully crafted to optimize ad viewing. Please search "heatmaps internet users", second link from the top for further details.
Therefore, while you have not modified the copyrighted page, per say, you still impact the profits from the copyrighted page. (this is a big legal argument, and Google has been sued for this many times.)
Besides, why would anyone still use Rogers when they could use Teksavvy? |
|
1 edit | reply to openbox9
Certainly looks like that Yahoo! logo is on the same page to me. Unless you have a different definition of "page" than the rest of us, which on BBR is completely possible  |
|
PittsPghPremium
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | reply to megahuts
They might blame the Wrong party for this The other thing is, the people who don't know what is going on will be blaming the wrong party for these ads. If they don't know Rogers or thier ISP is doing this, they might think it is Google or whichever website they are visiting is doing this.
Paul |
|
|
|
 DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to openbox9
Re: Questionable Legality It's the HTML that's copyrighted, not how a browser renders it. |
|
 aSicapplication specificPremium
join:2001-05-17
Wakulla, FL | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:Look at the screen caps, the ads aren't "in" the copyrighted pages. You must be new to the game.
"in the page" is defined as anything within the <html> </html> tags. Since its being rendered by the browser, its obviously inside those tags, which is obviously "in the page".
With the ISPs having this ability, there is really nothing stopping them from "adjusting" the results you get from google to include those advertisers with the local ISP looking as a legitimate search result. Such as searching a political candidate in the future, getting redirected to a competitors site.
The ISP is a provider... in other words, the pathway to the internet. What is happening here is mangling the pathway to suit their (big ISP) interests. Its not being forced on the ISP in any way. Although this is just a "test", its just one step away from injecting ads, or whatever else the ISP "deems appropriate" into whatever page you try to look at. No different than a newspaper having two different prints with an "a" and "b" story on the front page, and delivering you whichever they think you'd prefer, instead of purely reporting the news.
Now, OTOH, Rogers is in *.ca correct? So, really, what do I care about it? If this begins in the *.us, I'm sure theres gonna be an issue...
--
Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say.
Who is Ron Paul? |
|
