|
 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) made a similar argument last year: quote:
"When Rogers modifies the html file in their cache and sends it to its subscribers, it means the Web page has become a derivative work of the original page under copyright,"; McOrmond said. "So if the licence for the particular Web site being modified does not allow for derivative works, Rogers would becomes a pirate. This is a modified work which is considered a worse violation of copyright than verbatim distribution for free."
Don't know how effective that argument would be in court given they're essentially using a frame and no original content is distorted. ISPs might not want to risk a fight with the courts or network neutrality brigades though. | |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
 ·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| because its not replacing anything on the website. its being put along in another frame- as pictured above; or above the actual web site content.
Not everything is a violation of copyright laws. Especially this because as i stated; its not actually altering the website content. | |
|
 | 
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? and where is that frame's source located ?
Its basically taking a page, and rendering it as a frame within a page. Its very borderline legal.
I.e. If my page is to be rendered as a page, and suddenly, I find my page loads as a frame with ad ridden content beside/ontop of it, this could be seen as an attempt to hijack content.
Eg. If I went to www.nsa.gov, and found the page split in 2 with a video of Obama as a good samaritan ontop, some one's going to be in trouble.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| 
adisor19
join:2004-10-11 | Huh ? It IS altering the website content. When i request an HTML document, i expect that HTML document to be what i requested. If the contents change, whether it's in a separate frame or not, then we have a BIG problem.
Adi | |
|
| |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
1 edit | Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? very true. that part about leaching is true if the ISP does use it for such. I don't see a problem with the system though if its a very low speed tier that the ISP is giving away for dollars a month- such as maybe 96k by 56k for say like $10 per month- i wouldnt see a problem with it then.
Although i would like to know when i would reaching my monthly cap and this could be very usfull for such a thing or Amber Alerts or such. | |
|
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? Why not simply have another window open... oh wait.. pop-ups for ad content provider revenue tried this in the past, where hundreds of redirects and pop-ups would invade your screen.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
why82923
@sbc.com
| said by Dogfather  :They modify the site owners HTML to inject their javascript execution line then forward the modified HTML to the user (whose browser then renders the HTML along with the freshly injected executes the javascript). The HTML of site owners like Google is copyrighted and it's a violation of copyright law to modify copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder, especially for profit. You mean that HTML that Google stole from the site owner in the first place to build their index?
 | |
|
| hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? especially when they cache versions of the websites on their own servers all around the world. Google is basically taking from someone. And their actually keeping it until they refresh to save again. | |
|
| | 
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? said by hottboiinnc :especially when they cache versions of the websites on their own servers all around the world. Google is basically taking from someone. And their actually keeping it until they refresh to save again. robots.txt  | |
|
sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
H0H 0H0 | This is one of the reasons that many sites do not permit referrals ... so that their page cannot be framed inside another as we often see. | |
|
| 
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? said by sbrook :This is one of the reasons that many sites do not permit referrals ... so that their page cannot be framed inside another as we often see. Just curious... the referer string is a function of the browser... which normally just uses the URL of whatever page it's on.
If code is injected or modified, does the URL also get changed? I don't see this being necessary... and, if it isn't, then denying access based on referer is not going to help...
--
My Site | |
|
|
|
|
·
·