Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20380569 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:06:01 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:06:01 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20384908 Dogfather :
said by hottboiinnc See Profile :

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.
Frames are a function of the HTML.

You can't have frames without modifying the HTML to add the line that executes the ISP's java which is the frame and content.

For example, if they did this to you while browsing google you request the HTML page from Google who then serves it to you.

The ISP intercepts the page, edits it adding a single line near the beginning of the HTML code saying to execute a particular javascript on the ISPs server.

The modified page is then forwarded to you at which time your browser loads the HTML, executes that java script and renders the page, along with the java code which is the frames and content.

Without stand alone separate software running on your machine, nothing can appear in the browser without being part of the HTML (aside from hacks like the GDI+ patch fixes).

Looking at copyright, it sure seems to be that it is not legal for the ISP to take Google's HTML and changing it even if it's to add this single javascript execution line without Google's permission.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20384908 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:45:03 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20383895 pog :
said by sbrook See Profile :

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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20383895 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:24:00 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20381072 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20381072 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:53:05 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380783 Matt :
said by hottboiinnc See Profile :

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 :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380783 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:07:21 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380730 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380730 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:58:33 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380714 adisor19 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380714 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:56:13 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380654 anon :
said by Dogfather See Profile :

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?

:)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380654 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:44:17 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380640 en102 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380640 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:41:47 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380623 en102 : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380623 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:39:21 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380612 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380612 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:38:04 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380576 en102 : I agree.
Even though this appears to not change the function of someones content by opening another frame, it IS modifying the basic content. This would make users assume that the modified data is from the page source, and not an ISP attempting to leach off someone elses content for ad revenue.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380576 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:32:03 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380571 hottboiinnc : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380571 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:31:21 EDT Re: How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380569 Karl Bode : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380569 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:30:55 EDT How is this not a violation of copyright? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380525 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20380525 Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:23:41 EDT