 jjoshuaPremium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:1
1 edit | Amazon who? What was Amazon's reason for the takedown notice?
Surely, there is no reason to stop someone from distributing a plug-in and surely there is no reason to stop people from installing it if they want to.
The plug-in could have redirected people to the Border's web site instead of TPB. No difference. |
|
| It is a copyrighted website that is being altered.
That would be my guess as to the reason the would give. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:It is a copyrighted website that is being altered. That's an interesting proposition. Once they deliver the page to me, it should be mine to do whatever I want as long as I don't distribute a derivative work.
If modifying a page delivered to my machine (to be displayed to me) is a problem, it seems like Ad Block Plus would be too.
Mark |
|
| said by amigo_boy:said by Skippy25:It is a copyrighted website that is being altered. That's an interesting proposition. Once they deliver the page to me, it should be mine to do whatever I want as long as I don't distribute a derivative work. If modifying a page delivered to my machine (to be displayed to me) is a problem, it seems like Ad Block Plus would be too. Mark This is correct. Once you visit the website, it is cached data that resides on your HD. You own the right to modify the bits on that HD, but let me make it clear you do NOT own the right to the content but you have the right to modify the content as you please. However, redistributing the content would probably be crossing the line, but if its a modification for personal use only, it would be kinda hard to argue that in court.
For those who want to argue this. What can you argue? That you don't have the right to read/write/delete data (bits) to your own HD? Yeah, let me know when you find a law that says that  . |
|
