dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1378
share rss forum feed

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless

So now we are all consumers?

BULL! The only way these bums can "target" adverts in such a system is by violating the copyright of the website owner.

To "inject" adds into someones content means altering the content; a clear violation of the publisher's copyright protections.

Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here.

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

Re: So now we are all consumers?

said by TamaraB:

To "inject" adds into someones content means altering the content; a clear violation of the publisher's copyright protections.
That's not what copyright law is about at all.

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless

1 edit

Re: So now we are all consumers?

said by jester121:

That's not what copyright law is about at all.
Huh? If someone clicks on one of my web pages, and receives my content with added content (the advert), they are altering my copyrighted content. They are making it look like I placed the additional content on MY page. This is exactly what copyright law forbids. Without violating copyright law, it is impossible for me to alter your content.

Worse -- it can easily be made to appear that I endorse some product.

Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here.

swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
It is not a violation of the website owner's copyright. The website owner has a right to have the page the way he wants it while it's on his server, but once a copy of it transmitted to you, you're free to do as you wish with your copy, as long as you don't republish it.

And you can hire someone to alter pages for you. You may not want this service, but ISPs will simply put something in their "Terms of service" that you have to consent to it in order to get internet. Then from the legal point of view, the ISP is acting on your behalf.

So there's no copyright issue. There may be a legal "cause of action" for some other tort - maybe, for example, interference with contract if it harms the relationship between the site owner and the advertisers that pay the site owner for carrying their ads.

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless

Re: So now we are all consumers?

said by swhx7:

It is not a violation of the website owner's copyright. The website owner has a right to have the page the way he wants it while it's on his server, but once a copy of it transmitted to you, you're free to do as you wish with your copy, as long as you don't republish it.
This is exactly the point. By injecting add content, and forging the headers to make it appear that the ads are coming from me you are re-publishing my content in an altered state. How is this not a copyright violation?

Serving up content from an identified external server (which is easily blocked) may satisfy your definition, but if an ISP literally alters my content and re-publishes it for their customers public viewing, they are violating my rights.

Let's take this out of the realm of just advertising, because the very same technology can (and likely will) be applied to many other forms of web content. Let's say I publish an article with details exposing a particular crime Bush has committed. My ISP attaches a header-forged popup, or footer, or header, decrying my analysis. This added content looks like it originated from my site. You are saying this is not a copyright violation?

So there's no copyright issue. There may be a legal "cause of action" for some other tort ...
If I publish a book about Bass fishing in the North East, and someone re-publishes the very same book, attributed to me, and adds adverts to Bass Pro Shops on relevant and critical pages, you are saying this is not a copyright violation?

Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here.

swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia

Re: So now we are all consumers?

You missed the rest of my post where I explained. To use your analogy, it's as if someone bought your book and hired someone to cut out some parts and add in other parts, and then give it to you - but not offer the altered version to the public.

As I said before, the buyer doesn't really want this but has to agree to it because it's the only way he can access the content (ISPs don't negotiate on terms, and have little competition, and any competitor may be offering only the same terms).

Per my understanding of copyright law, plus the tendency of law to approve business models of corporations at the expense of individuals, this arragement would not be an infringement.

I do hope that your theory would prevail. But without the ability to inject ads, the companies like Nebuad and ISPs would seek to "monetize" their customers' data in some other way, and the only other way would be selling it to advertisers more directly.

BTW, this reminds me to point out another evil in this arrangement: if ISPs and Nebuad are not stopped by legislation, it will set a precedent for alteration of content, and it will become hard to tell whether you're seeing the same versions of news stories that the news site published, and other content likewise will become untrustworthy or censored.

Everyone: if you care about this, write to your legislators.

TamaraB
Question The Current Paradigm
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Da Bronx
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Clearwire Wireless

Re: So now we are all consumers?

said by swhx7:

You missed the rest of my post where I explained. To use your analogy, it's as if someone bought your book and hired someone to cut out some parts and add in other parts, and then give it to you - but not offer the altered version to the public.
I understand. But that's what's NOT happening. If my ISP alters my content, and then they display that content to their public subscriber base. That's a public rendering of my altered content. It's not only to me they are altering the content to, it's their entire customer base.

I do hope that your theory would prevail. But without the ability to inject ads, the companies like Nebuad and ISPs would seek to "monetize" their customers' data in some other way, and the only other way would be selling it to advertisers more directly.
I don't believe in accepting one illegality to thwart another possibly worse illegality. That is a sure road to hell!

Everyone: if you care about this, write to your legislators.
Actually, we don't need any more laws! All we need is the enforcement of existing laws.

This could, and should, be attacked based on existing copyright laws, which prohibit a publishing channel from altering the content of a copyrighted work. I am no lawyer, but I do run a political site, which routinely partially quotes copyrighted works from main-stream news media. If I were to mis-quote a NY Times article, you can be assured they would write me and demand (rightly) to remove or correct the mis-quoted post upon pain of a law suit. I don't see how this situation is any different. If you alter a copyrighted work, and publish it as if it came from the original publisher, you are in violation of their copyright.

Bob
--
Motor Vessel - Tamara B.
43' Long-Range Trawler
Cape Elizebeth ME.
See her Here.