|reply to Dogfather |
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: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.
"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."