[HN Gopher] Eyeo wins German copyright decision, sets legal prec... ___________________________________________________________________ Eyeo wins German copyright decision, sets legal precedent for who 'owns' HTML Author : rmoriz Score : 300 points Date : 2022-01-18 15:51 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (eyeo.com) (TXT) w3m dump (eyeo.com) | cestith wrote: | HTML as served from the server can be owned by the publisher. I'm | fine with that. Just don't tell me how I can view it and use | information from it once I have my copy you've allowed me to | download onto my machine. | | What Axel Springer was trying to do is equivalent to telling a | magazine subscriber they can't cut a couch out of an interior | design magazine and paste it on a poster board with the wallpaper | from another magazine to plan their own room. That's not how | copyright works. My copy is my copy. | vmception wrote: | Does this have any equivalent to US laws or was it at all a | departure from German law? I don't see what the precedent is, | everything thinks the topic they care about is so important when | its not. | | The claims were 1) that HTML of a page is copyrighted 2) so | _therefore_ browser extensions that modify it are a problem | | If I read this correctly, the court curbstomped 2) because thats | silly while not needing to address 1) because thats true but has | nothing to do with what a browser extension does. | | Couldn't this had been dismissed since there is nothing new at | all? was there really ever a risk of anything different | occurring? what a waste of time | Ekaros wrote: | I see that as correct decision. Yes, sure the HTML of a page is | copyrighted work. | | But the 2 following from that is bit weird. I couldn't take | magazine cut it up and make something new? Or a book? Or maybe | I have ebook reader and I couldn't change the font and size? | wolfi1 wrote: | Germany does not have the notion of copyright like in the | Anglo-American legal system, so I guess it's basically only | applicable in Germany and countries where they do have the same | regulations | [deleted] | bitwize wrote: | Continental copyright is actually a bit stronger than Anglo- | American copyright because it draws from the concept of | authors' rights, the moral right of an author to control how | their work is exhibited (because the work is tied up with the | author's reputation). Hence why essential aspects of American | copyright law, like public domain and fair use, are leas | developed or missing in non-Anglo Western Europe. | mminer237 wrote: | Germany has copyright laws like virtually all countries do, | and it was party to the Berne Convention. | | Its copyright laws are in the _Gesetz uber Urheberrecht und | verwandte Schutzrechte_. It just doesn 't call them that. The | main difference I believe is that they're not totally | transferable and it doesn't have the work for hire doctrine, | but it gives the author of a work the exclusive right to | reproduce that work, i.e., the right to copy it and to | delegate that right. | kmeisthax wrote: | Not only does Germany have copyright, it is _the_ reason | why Disney was able to bully around the US into the last | major copyright term extension. | | On a more meta note, I'm noticing a pattern where people | figure that jurisdictional or cultural differences | constitute such a dramatic difference that "insert crazy | copyright law here" is just assumed to not apply in their | local jurisdiction, or that it will never apply to them. It | will. There might be cases where you do have cultural | differences, but copyright isn't one of them. Copyright | enjoys _deep_ international consensus on almost every | issue, and the only practical differences between | jurisdictions are things like: | | - Should copyright terms be long (life+50), extra-long | (life+70), or practically forever (up to life+100)? | | - Should authors be allowed to unwind licensing agreements | and copyright transfers? | | - Can an author intentionally destroy their own copyright | interest in a work? Or does "public domain" only include | works whose copyright has naturally expired? | | - Do authors enjoy moral rights to their work? If so, can | those rights be waived or not? | | - Do online services need to proactively filter content in | order to avoid copyright liability, or is merely offering | no-questions-asked takedowns to copyright owners enough? | | - Do you need to register your copyright in order to sue? | | Y'know, things "on the margins" of copyright. | | It's important not to understate how _ridiculously radical_ | the stereotypical hacker position on copyright is. Even | avowed Communists were willing to continue a watered-down | copyright regime[0] despite having a legal system that | specifically considered profit to be a form of exploitation | and regularly charged people with things like "social | parasitism". The kinds of people here who would like to see | copyright abolished or reformed into oblivion are, in one | sense at least, "to the left[1] of Soviet Russia". | Everywhere else, people hold copyright as a base | assumption. This includes "America", "the Anglosphere", | "the West", and any other division you want to talk about | to make your point that you don't think the law applies | when it does. | | [0] Strictly speaking, I've been told by actual Russian | emigrants who lived under Soviet rule that copyright wasn't | a thing people worried about until the fall of Communism. | However, this is also concomitant with copyright interests | in capitalist countries being increasingly worried about | consumer-level copyright infringement. What I do know is | that the laws on the books did exist, but I suspect they | were only used against state-owned publishing enterprises, | as that would fit in with the general ideas behind | Socialist law better. | | The Soviets _were_ actually worried about the masses | copying music before the RIAA was. However, this had less | to do with copyright and more to do with censorship: before | the 1970s importing western music was hella illegal. There | actually were bootleg music copying rings at that time; | they 'd copy the music onto makeshift vinyl records made | out of old X-ray prints. | | [1] Insamuch as "left" without additional qualifiers is | even a meaningful term at that point. | foepys wrote: | Yes but there are still significant differences. E.g. | Germany has no legal concept of dedicating work to the | "public domain". Everything released as "public domain" | today is effectively copyrighted. You can release your work | under GPL, MIT, CC0, and so on but not as public domain. | freeflight wrote: | _> Germany has no legal concept of dedicating work to the | "public domain"._ | | Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement, but Germany | very much has a legal concept like "public domain", that | of Gemeinfreiheit [0] which also includes; | | _" Werke, die vom Schopfer in die Gemeinfreiheit | entlassen wurden."_ | | What's the big difference to "public domain" I'm missing | here? | | [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinfreiheit | andi999 wrote: | From your link:"Nach deutschem und osterreichischem Recht | ist umstritten, ob ein Totalverzicht auf das Urheberrecht | zugunsten der Allgemeinheit moglich ist. Die wohl | herrschende Meinung schliesst dies unter Berufung auf SS | 29 UrhG-D bzw. SS 19 UrhG-O aus. Daher gibt es dort keine | Gemeinfreiheit durch Rechteverzicht wie in den USA," | | So the current legal opinion is that you cannot 'give' | your work to public domain. Minority opinion believes you | can. | | So for your work to enter public domain, you just have to | pass away and wait 70 years (or whatever the specific | requirement was). | ttybird2 wrote: | https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html | cestith wrote: | It looks like Axel Springer was trying to assert that the | user's own software on their own client device was creating | derivative works on behalf of companies like eyeo. Just because | eyeo wrote the software that I may or may not choose to use on | my device does not mean and IMO should not be taken to mean | that eyeo is republishing anything for my consumption. I'm just | using my copy of the web page that I obtained legally from the | web server with software I choose to use which may display | things differently from how the publisher of the page intends. | [deleted] | qsort wrote: | It wouldn't be the first time that something indefensibly | stupid is afforded legal protection, see DRM. | LordHeini wrote: | Not sure of anything equivalent, but the whole case does not | make much sense. | | In my opinion its quite simple: | | The Landgericht Hamburg is known for its incredible ineptitude | and a tendency to decide in favor of the likes of Springer and | other internet/tech adverse entities. | | I assume, Springer which a massive publisher of Fox News style | garbage like Bild (colloquially known as Blod), tried to | capitalize on that ineptitude. | | So it is quite remarkable that Springer failed. | blibble wrote: | > developer of best-in-class ad-filtering technology found in | millions of browsers and products around the world | | I must admit, this is pretty funny... there is "ublock" which | users are tricked into installing (instead of the real ublock | origin), which uses their "acceptable ads" | | and people have said that their business model is based on | extorting ad companies to pay them to not block their ads | josephcsible wrote: | Is "acceptable ads" really a bad thing? I'm not opposed to | seeing any ads; I just don't want badly behaved ones. And is | there a less bad alternative to accomplish that? | radley wrote: | "Acceptable" for whom? After AdBlock made their acceptable | ads deal with Google, they whitelisted stuff like sexy girls | and misinfo videos in the Recommended Videos side-list on | YouTube. Fake Ublock is probably the same way. | qoi24u5xnlqeuq wrote: | previous employer had a hush-hush-don't-talk-about-it deal | with ABP. $1mi per month to allow a subset of our ads all | over the internet. ...which all the tracking cookies | included. | | It was a great deal for everyone, but people who installed | ABP. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | Yes, it's a bad thing. | | Because you can't choose what's acceptable, they do. | | You won't decide the topic, format, quantity, density, | duration, nature or interruption type. Which is different for | you, me, or your children. | | What's more, ads are not made for your benefit, ever, but to | the benefit of the advertiser which may (but statistically | more likely may not) align with yours. | | And also because: | | - the incentive gets twisted, which means you can't trust | ublock on the long run. | | - unkown unknowns means down the road, some ads will manage | to track you or serve malicious content despite ublock | filtering. | | - ads paid content is a terrible business model which take a | price people are not wired to assess nor realize they pay for | something they disguise as free yet has an impact on the | entire society. Not a great thing to encourage. | | And I say all that as someone who gets revenue from ads. | gorhill wrote: | > you can't trust ublock on the long run | | Why is this? Would you also say this for other long running | open source projects which have never breach the trust of | their users? | tpxl wrote: | Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't uBlock handed over | (changed owners? don't quite know how to put it) and | uBlock origin started later precisely because uBlock | breached the trust of their users? | gorhill wrote: | I am assuming the person was referring to "uBlock Origin" | given that "uBlock" has already shown it can't be | trusted, maybe I am wrong and he was indeed referring to | "uBlock". | | The repo was handed in good faith, not for the sake of | financial gains. It turned out to be a mistake, from | which I learned. That was now nearly seven years ago. If | the take away from that event after years of never | breaching user trust is that "uBlock Origin can't be | trusted in the long run", that's pretty harsh. | mundo03 wrote: | Right, any idea on how to keep content accessible and | people with paychecks maintaining it? | BiteCode_dev wrote: | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | I think so. You ask a server for something and it bundles | that thing with other bits crafted to make you do something | other than what you originally contacted the server for. | | It might exploit a buffer overflow or it might exploit a | distractable human, but it's malware just the same. | grey_earthling wrote: | Privacy Badger may be useful to you. It blocks trackers, | which just so happens to prevent some ads from loading. | | I've seen websites ask me to disable my ad blocker when I | only have Privacy Badger enabled (on top of Firefox's built- | in behaviour). | karaterobot wrote: | For you, this might be a great solution. I think most people | who install an adblocker do it because they don't want to see | _any_ ads, so it defeats the purpose. | blibble wrote: | I wonder how many users install an product that claims to be | an "ad blocker" so they can see different ads | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: | As far as I'm concerned, all advertisers can go to hell. If a | majority of advertisers had behaved themselves we would never | have invented ad blockers[0] in the first place. This | industry has proven time and time again that they are the | scum of the fucking earth and cannot be trusted. I for one am | tired of giving them any chances. | | [0] pop up blockers, originally | dheera wrote: | Yes this. I've had it with ads that pop up filling up the | screen while I'm reading halfway through a sentence, | spewing cookies all over the place, and loading megabytes | of JavaScripts on a 2G connection. | | They can all pay the consequences now of me blocking them. | | If they had been well-behaved and stuck to inline ads with | no cookies, I would have left them there. | mcherm wrote: | > I'm not opposed to seeing any ads; I just don't want badly | behaved ones. | | While I support this sentiment, a definition of "badly | behaved ads" which is based on whether or not the advertiser | paid money to some third party is just not a definition I can | live with. | criddell wrote: | That's not the definition though, is it? | roblabla wrote: | Depends on what you mean by "definition". They say[0] | they only accept ads that do not disrupt the reading | flow, can be distinguished from the rest of the content, | and has a reasonable size (all clearly defined). (They | also have more criterias, but those are the main ones). | | But the problem is, that is very poorly enforced in | practice. Whenever I use ABP, I see ads breaking the | standard _everywhere_. To the point where I can only | assume the Acceptable Ads definition is just a | deflection. | | And of course, there's the whole "you need to pay to get | on the list" which creates some very awful incentives. | | [0]: https://acceptableads.com/standard/ | SahAssar wrote: | You have to pay a fee to get on to the acceptable ads | list, right? | mundo03 wrote: | check acceptableads.com In summary, high revenue/traffic | sites do pay, small sites don't. | criddell wrote: | You have to pay tuition to attend MIT but that's not all | you have to do to leave there with a degree. | cowpig wrote: | And did you know that you need to add or remove hydrogen | ions to change the pH of a solution? Anyway, back to the | conversation we were having | JadeNB wrote: | You can explain why you think it's a bad analogy, but | this kind of dismissive snark helps no one. | cowpig wrote: | I agree in principle but I also feel like there needs to | be a minimum threshold of effort or topical relevance in | a comment or the discussion becomes a kind of Gish | Gallop[0] | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop | Kye wrote: | How about a Gish Trot? Use flowery language to further | confuse and it's Gish Dressage. | pgrote wrote: | I think that is a legitimate question. The issue becomes | there is no standard or method to ensure acceptable ads. A | static ad without javascript is acceptable to me. Maybe not | to someone else. | | But ... the ad industry would never accept a static ad more | akin to a billboard than a tracking device. Many times in the | past malware has found its way into networks run by the more | highly regarded ad systems. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising | | If a content publisher refuses to let people read articles | without a subscription or with an ad blocker, I am ok with | that. It is their choice. | josefx wrote: | > a static ad more akin to a billboard than a tracking | device | | The sad part is that you assume that modern day billboards | aren't tracking you. All you need is a camera, a tiny | computer and some AI. Once walked by a fully electronic | billboard where the slideshow crashed, the log it displayed | listed everything it could identify about people passing | by, age, gender, height, hair color, emotional state, ... . | atoav wrote: | Static non javascript file, hosted by the site owner. | whimsicalism wrote: | > the ad industry would never accept a static ad more akin | to a billboard than a tracking device. | | Is JS synonymous with tracking? Why can't you just track | server side? I don't see how removing JS from ads would | prevent FB from targeting me on my FB feed. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | Without JS phoning home everywhere there's a 'share on | Facebook' button, Facebook can only track your activity | on their site. | jnurmine wrote: | For some reason I wasn't aware that ABP supported "Acceptable | Ads". | | How does Eyeo make money? | detaro wrote: | Huh? What does eyeo have to do with uBlock? Adblock plus is | their thing. | GuB-42 wrote: | AdBlock Plus and uBlock are owned by the same company, uBlock | is not uBlock Origin, and the history is confusing. | | uBlock/uBlock was the original, released in 2014 by Gorhill. | In 2015, fed up with support request, he transferred the | project to Chris Aljoudi. He then forked his own project, | most likely due to a disagreement over donations, it became | uBlock Origin. Eventually most people moved from uBlock to | the better maintained uBlock Origin. Eyeo eventually bought | uBlock and added their "acceptable ads" option. | | So you can't say that uBlock is a fake, it is actually the | original project. But the one made by the original author is | uBlock Origin. | | Yes it is confusing, but whatever, get uBlock Origin. | gorhill wrote: | The current "uBlock" is not the original project, "uBlock | Origin" is the original project. | | The essence of a project is not the location of its repo on | GitHub, it's who worked on it since it was first created, | i.e. the commit history. If you look at the commit history | of "uBlock Origin", it goes back without interruption to | June 23rd, 2014, back to when I created the repo.[1] | | The claim that the current "uBlock" is the "official", | "original" project is a marketing pitch by the people | behind it, who I call out as purposefully deceitful.[2] | | * * * | | [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/graphs/contributors | | [2] https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1477665332156420096 | ajayyy wrote: | It is officially one "team" now https://eyeo.com/teaming-up- | for-new-products-the-teams-behin... | | Historically, it always seemed like it was one company though | as Adblock codebase has been based on Adblock plus codebase | for years, and they both use Acceptable ads. | | Edit to avoid confusion: Fake "uBlock" (not to be confused | with uBlock Origin) is owned by AdBlock | https://www.ublock.org/blog/an-update-on-ublock/ | efdee wrote: | That article is about the team(s) behind Adblock and | Adblock Plus. It has nothing to do with uBlock Origin. | ajayyy wrote: | uBlock != uBlock Origin | | uBlock is a scam | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock | https://ublock.org | xxpor wrote: | Adblock/ABP != uBlock Origin | whimsicalism wrote: | lol ublock origin blocks that second link | detaro wrote: | ... and what does that have to do with uBlock? (EDIT: and | if you edit in answers to questions into your original | comment, please mark that as an edit) | erk__ wrote: | uBlock (Not origin) was acquired by AdBlock (not plus), | look under the uBlock header here | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#uBlock | detaro wrote: | thanks, that was the piece that I was missing | ballenf wrote: | Feels like a bad time to bite the hand that was willing to | defend a precedent that serves everyone (if publishers were | successful there, they'd have a much easier time arguing in | other countries for "harmonization" legislation). | Aperocky wrote: | Precedent or not, they have no ability to enforce any of such | ridiculous claim had it gone the other way, it's like certain | governments trying to 'ban' encryption. | 1f60c wrote: | Let's hope their lawyers don't read HN. :-) | gowld wrote: | It's a good time to think about how to fund legal defense for | free / open source software, and not rely on alliances with | scammy companies. | zxcvbn4038 wrote: | Reminds me of | https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/13/business/media-business-a... | where a bunch of billboard owners in Times Square (New York | City) tried to sue Sony over digitally replacing the | advertisements in scenes in a Spiderman Movie. Luckily the | judge in that case came to a similar conclusion. | | I'm still dubious the city skylines can be copyrighted - NYC | believes they own the copyright on the city's skyline. I'm also | dubious that the NYC Subway can copyright the route indicators | (letters in circles). | | https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/the-por... | | http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2010/01/07/mta-symbols-intellectu... | [deleted] | detritus wrote: | I've helped on a few jobs that required representing the | skyline of London (in advertising, for example) and my | clients have always been very careful to ensure that modern | landmarks aren't entirely accurate, to avoid this kind of | complication. | wefarrell wrote: | Going after photographers who have the subway signs in the | background is one thing, but going after businesses for | copying their font seems entirely different to me. | | They're a corporation who paid a lot of money for the rights | to it, how is is different than Walmart or Netflix going | after companies for using their fonts? | nybble41 wrote: | The GP's linked article[0] doesn't say anything about | fonts. It says that the MTA sued someone for using the | letter 'N' in a circle on a T-shirt. Not even the same | color scheme. | | Judging from the examples on one of the MTA's branding | pages[1], there doesn't seem to be anything particularly | unique about the font they're using. They don't even | mention it by name. Other sources claim the official | signage is a mix of Helvetica and Akzidenz Grotesk. In any | case, fontface designs are not copyrightable in the US. | _Fonts_ can be (as programs /data) but that isn't really | relevant here. | | [0] http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2010/01/07/mta-symbols- | intellectu... | | [1] | http://web.mta.info/developers/resources/line_colors.htm | whimsicalism wrote: | > and people have said that their business model is based on | extorting ad companies to pay them to not block their ads | | i mean, it is. ABP is basically modern day protection racket | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | In a protection racket, you're paying for protection from the | protectors, no third party involved. | | In this case they're a middle man between the abusers and the | abused, so I think it's more like prostitution. | brezelgoring wrote: | If it is, I like this protection racket. | | Inflamatory statements aside, and whether or not online | advertising is acceptable in its current form, there is a | need they are fulfilling. If people don't find ads to be | hospitable to their user experience then people don't find | ads to be hospitable to their user experience, period. You | can argue why all you want, in the meantime, ABP is there to | get rid of them for you. | whimsicalism wrote: | No, they are there to get companies to pay them hundreds of | thousands of $ in order to get them to unblock their | advertising. | | They'll also mistakenly introduce bugs to destroy your on- | site metrics if you don't pay up. | simonbw wrote: | But ABP isn't there to get rid of them for you, they're | there to get paid for allowing you to see them. Not only | that, they're trying to weaken the other adblockers that | _are_ there to get rid of ads for you. | SomeBoolshit wrote: | It's crazy that this fundamental misunderstanding still | gets repeated ever since they introduced acceptable ads. | | Companies pay to get their ads categorized as acceptable | _if they meet the criteria for that_. You can 't just pay | to get your ads to show up. | | And within the browser extension, the user still has the | option to block them anyway. | bserge wrote: | Taywee wrote: | > Not only that, they're trying to weaken the other | adblockers that are there to get rid of ads for you. | | I'm going to need a citation for that. I don't use ABP | for obvious reasons, but I don't really see them as a | problem; they're effectively extorting money from | advertising companies, which are absolute scum and | deserve to lose any and all profits that they have made | (not only for scummy business practices and an entire | business model built around the worst kind of | psychological manipulation and data mining, but actually | convincing people that they are good for supporting a | "free web" as if they are some charitable benefactors | giving free money out of the good of their hearts). The | enemy of my enemy is my friend. | | I haven't been able to suss out any way that they do any | real harm to the end users, but if they do actually do | harm to other ad blockers, that would be some actual | harm, but I am having trouble finding any evidence of | this anywhere. | salawat wrote: | So... Why not support the ones that just remove it? | Because you're implicitly legitimizing advertising | practices (albeit at a hgher cost) by supporting these | yokels. | Taywee wrote: | I use uBlock Origin. I'm just saying that I see blocking | ads and strong arming disgusting companies into losing | some of their ill-gotten profits as not much of a bad | thing. I don't see any way that ABP existing is worse for | the end user than it not existing, especially if you | don't even use it anyway. | [deleted] | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _you 're implicitly legitimizing advertising practices_ | | There is a middle ground of people okay with advertising, | but pissed off about the nightmare that is the present | state of internet ads. I use uBlock. But I'd be okay with | _e.g._ text ads that don't track me. | [deleted] | dtx1 wrote: | For non germans: The Hamburg Courts are known for their usually | insane anti-free internet interpretations of law. The fact that | this was won by "the good guys" in Hamburg of all cases is | remarkable. | | Springer Press, perhaps best described as the german equivalent | of fox news, chose hamburg specifically for their lawsuit | assuming the judges there would follow their usual retarded | interpretation of the law. To have your arguments be bad and | stupid enough to lose there is astounding. | eganist wrote: | soperj wrote: | Considering he wasn't actually describing someone with | intellectual disabilities, and the word shouldn't be used to | describe someone with a disability now, why can't the word be | used as "foolish"? | robbedpeter wrote: | simonh wrote: | Personal feelings are not, or should not be protected in | law. There is no right protecting someone from things | they personally find offensive. | jdavis703 wrote: | Be that as it may, it's still useful to be polite. I'm | given the full right to flip the bird to any person I | want. That doesn't mean that I should do it to everyone I | see. | simonh wrote: | Sure, and persistently targeting an individual shouldn't | be acceptable, but that's not what's happening here. I | know there's a strain of bullying that claims protection | as "humour" too, but I didn't divine any malign intent in | the comment. | diogenesjunior wrote: | dang wrote: | Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here. | Please don't do this again. | | Also, bringing in someone's personal details as | ammunition in an argument is not cool - https://hn.algoli | a.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | eganist wrote: | > eganist is a reddit moderator, that's all that needs to | be said. | | Regrettably, we've lost lives on the subreddit in | question owing to people taking their own lives or being | murdered as a consequence of threads posted to it. So I | appreciate the highlight; it's definitely one of the | reasons I'm so sensitive to it. | gjs278 wrote: | sol_invictus wrote: | dtx1 wrote: | rosndo wrote: | Where should the line be drawn? Are terms like stupid, idiot | or moron also unacceptable? All of these words have very | similar origins. | eganist wrote: | As another commenter stated, there's a good argument | against all of these words too. | | More on the regulatory and medical usage 'moron' once had: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) | | Pejoration is common; it's just something we have to | continue to stay ahead of as people negatively adapt | language to suit their own short term ends. | nobody9999 wrote: | eganist wrote: | > It is. And always will be, no matter how much or how | little the "vocabulary police" like you (is that | acceptable or is that, in your small mind, (incorrectly) | an ad-hominem too?) decide what language is "acceptable" | and what is "unacceptable." | | > I'll decide for myself (and accept the | judgement/consequences of my peers -- of whom you are | not) what is appropriate to say in a particular context. | | > I don't need you or anyone else to tell me what words I | should or shouldn't use. And I'll say what I want, when I | want. Deal with it -- or don't and just ignore what I | say, my username is at the top of all my posts. | | > Or blather on about why I'm a terrible person because I | don't specifically subscribe to the idea that restricting | the speech of others, in exactly the way you want is a | good idea. | | > I can make my own decisions as to how to interact with | others and don't need you (or anyone else) telling me | what's acceptable or unacceptable. | | > All that said, I have no problem with you spouting off | about language and I didn't even downvote you. Perhaps my | example could inspire you to do the same? I won't hold my | breath. | | It's just about being kind to people, nobody9999. That's | why I submitted my original comment for awareness; it was | a request, not an instruction. | | Given this, I can't say I understand why you're taken | aback. I don't understand your sense of violation at a | mere suggestion to show kindness, basically. | | I'm not sure I'll ever understand either, and that's | okay. I wish you the best. | gjs278 wrote: | nobody9999 wrote: | [deleted] | noptd wrote: | >as another commenter stated, there's a good argument | against all of these words too. | | As far as I can tell, the other commenter was actually | making the opposite point (reducto ad absurdum). | pasabagi wrote: | Intuitively, I'm sympathetic, then I backdate your argument | by, say, 50 years, and wonder what words I'd find myself | defending... | DHPersonal wrote: | Yes, some have encouraged people to stop using those for | similar reasons. | https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases- | comm... | ruined wrote: | generally, yeah. it's always better to criticize some | actual property of what you're talking about rather than | try to make derogatory associations with some totally | unrelated thing. | | people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid", they have goals | you disagree with. explain why the goals are harmful and | the arguments are misleading. | | in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone | and they are making bad design decisions, calling them | names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a | better design is helpful. | | here, in online-debate-speak: "stupid" is an ad-hominem | bryanrasmussen wrote: | At some point there are people in the world who are | stupid, there are people whose goals are stupid, at some | point one must be able to describe things as they are. | | on edit: not necessarily so that these people are stupid, | but I think vanishing the concept of stupidity is a worse | result than just sometimes mistakenly describing people | as stupid. | mannerheim wrote: | > people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid" | | GGGP was not calling these individuals stupid, rather, | their interpretations of the law. And while they're not | argued by stupid people, you would certainly have to be | stupid to believe such arguments, e.g. the one at issue | in this case. I don't think Axel Springer's lawyers are | stupid. I think they're malicious. I think their argument | is stupid and one should have to be stupid to believe it. | | > in a more familiar context, if you are working with | someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling | them names isn't likely to be well received, but | providing a better design is helpful. | | I work with reasonable people. Entities like Axel | Springer are not reasonable because they have a vested | financial stake in the matter. Reason and debate won't | change the money at stake for them. | khuey wrote: | Ah, so the "Eastern District of Texas" of Germany then. Good | context to have, thanks. | wand3r wrote: | Yes I have heard of them, only through HN. It is like the US | Western district of Texas but in Germany right? | masklinn wrote: | TIL, I was going to say "eastern not western" but apparently | after eastern got kneecapped by Heartland western rose to | prominence because one of its judges is a turd, great. | IAmEveryone wrote: | It's a local copy of England retained for emergencies: The | people of Hamburg are seafaring, somewhat arrogant (but not | without cause), used to bad weather, proud of the Beatles, | envious of Berlin, and really wrong about libel law. | andybak wrote: | Brit here. Hamburg always felt strangely familiar. Now I | know why. | adamc wrote: | Well, I can't fault them for being proud of the Beatles. | mardifoufs wrote: | Why would british people be envious of Berlin? London is a | better city in almost every way, and that's coming from an | outsider to both countries. Berlin isn't even in the top 5 | cities in its own country, lol. | | Genuinely curious because most Germans I've met don't | particularly love Berlin at all, either unless they live | there. Maybe you are right, and they are just envious | though . | [deleted] | [deleted] | friendlydog wrote: | How is this different from VidAngel on premise? Remixing content, | html or video seems the same to me. | josefx wrote: | From what I could find Axel Springer failed on multiple fronts. | For one the court found that the final page layout was the | result of various highly automated and industrialized processes | and failed to meet the standard for a unified creative work. | The court also found that the changes to the pages rendering | code did not modify its substance, with that the court | distinguished it from a precedent about cheat software feeding | false data back to a server. | | [1]https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/landgericht-hamburg- | uebe... | umvi wrote: | > How is this different from VidAngel | | Because Disney got involved with VidAngel, and Disney always | wins. | | The problem is that there's basically no way to stream | arbitrary video content you own in a way that VidAngel can | access it client side for filtering. This is because the | content owners make deals such that the content is only able to | legally be streamed by certain vendors (Netflix, Amazon, or | other) and those vendors can put it in their ToS that you | aren't allowed to modify the stream in any way, etc. VidAngel | tried to get around it by streaming ripped DVDs and got nailed | by Disney. They might have been able to last longer had they | not gotten greedy with the dubious "sellback" program that | allowed you to remotely buy a DVD and then remotely sell it | back after viewing it. | | The only way I see viable "Family Home Movie Act" style video | filtering is if you build an open source DB of video metadata | and use that in conjunction with a VLC plugin or something. | Then you are responsible for obtaining your own video content, | which you can edit on the fly with the VLC plugin + open source | metadata DB. | [deleted] | freemint wrote: | Just so everyone aware there are two Springer media companies. | One does scientific publishing and one does not. They are | unrelated. | pessimizer wrote: | This is an excessively strong claim, one was started by the | grandson of the founder of the other. | cf141q5325 wrote: | Its a claim publicly made by the older Springer Verlag. They | ran advertisements in the 60s titling "Springer ist nicht | Springer". | | >Springer isnt Springer. Every chessgame has two knights | (Springer) which are easy to mix up. In publishing there are | also two Springer, who dont share anything but the word | Springer, but are often mixed up as a result. | | >... >Between the two publishers no family or economic ties | exist. | | edit: Obviously in the context of the Springer blockade by | the student movement. The advertisement in question is from | the Konkret issue number 6 of 1968 page 35 Bad translation | obviously. | freemint wrote: | I am not aware of any ownership relations, overlap of board | members or them interacting in a comparative manner. I am not | aware that any in of the two companies the name giving family | plays a significant role in day to day operations. | tgtweak wrote: | Just taking a minute here to say that Eyeo went on a copyright | offensive to all ad blockers with "ad block" in the name saying | it infringed on their brand. | | Very bad actors in this space, and their motivation here in this | suit is to continue their AdBlock racket of allowing ads to their | users for those advertisers that pay. | anthk wrote: | > effectively making it illegal for any technology or any | consumer to alter a website page appearance. | | How about using Edbrowse or Lynx? | wasmitnetzen wrote: | Yeah, if Springer would have won, it could very well have meant | that running a anything from Lynx to a screenreader or even a | broken (or old) CSS parser would have been illegal. Ridiculous | premise. | ydlr wrote: | Had Axel Springer won the case, it sounds like it would have | become illegal to scribble marginalia, highlight, or otherwise | alter the copyrighted content of books I own. | rsstack wrote: | Not really. They're claiming that it isn't the _user_ that's | scribbling on the HTML page, which is why their HTML (their | customers' HTML specifically) is different from books. | | Perhaps it would have limited libraries from re-lending books | that a patron scribbled on. But not automatically, it would | require a second court case. | tgtweak wrote: | They were trying to make the argument that they html was | copyright and thus modifying and redistributing it (IE removing | the ads) without license was infringing. The entirety of the | consideration was whether programmatically removing ads in the | page before serving it to the user consisted of redistribution | or reproduction. | | Definitely a stretch attempt at interpretation but not | surprising and not at all unreasonable. | | Your analogy isn't fully sane - You bought the book you're | scribbling in, and have the right to deface that copy as you | please, and even resell that copy. You may not reprint it with | a word whited out and offer it for reproduction or distribution | as your own. | | This side of copyright law is very well established and not | ambiguous. | elsjaako wrote: | I'm nog allowed tot print a new copy of The Hobbit, due to | copyright. | | However, if I buy a legal copy of the Hobbit and edit it using | whiteout and pen that would be perfectly legal (as far as I | understand). I could even sell my modified copy. | | Isn't this basically what an in-browser ad filter does? Or is my | understanding wrong here? | svnpenn wrote: | I am nog allowed tot say | jerf wrote: | Metaphors don't work here. Real browser pages have code which | could conceivably have EULAs, plus you may be in a EULA for a | paid service, you have cookie agreements involved (and a | similar question could be raised, is your browser _obligated_ | to return cookies once given?), the page may also already be | interactive (if modifying a page is stipulated to be wrong, | what about browser automation driving something "intended" to | be manual process? There are contracts the page provider has | with their advertisers. Things other than the end-user or page | provider may already have had their fingers in the pie (ISPs | blocking specific pages, even replacing ads with their own in | the network). There's a lot of parties involved in a modern | page with all sorts of relationships to each other. There's | also a scale here; it's one thing to modify your own copy of a | book but if you provide a service that modifies other people's | copies (computer style, with virtually no effort in a fraction | of a second), how is that different from publishing a modified | copy? What impact do those differences have on the question? | | All of these things are important and none translate into the | book, or any other simple physical metaphor. | | My summary answer would be that the status of ad blocking | legally is _deeply_ unclear if you really start analyzing it, | in all sorts of ways, in ways that different legal | jurisdictions will almost certainly rule differently on for all | the different individual questions, and almost certainly with | no coherence between the individual rulings. | wvenable wrote: | This is only about copyright and copyright only applies to | distribution of materials. You are free to modify any | copyrighted work for your own purposes as long as you don't | distribute your modifications. Distribution is the key. | jerf wrote: | Then, while I'm not convinced it is anywhere near as | separable as you believe, at the very least the book | metaphor completely fails to capture the ability to | distribute modifications as a first-class entity existing | on its own, in this case, block lists and other HTML | modification instructions, that can result in millions of | people getting the "same" modification in their hands. | | I called this the "patch hole" in the law over 20 years | ago, in analogy to the Unix patch tool, and I still don't | think I've seen a legal system cleanly grapple with what it | means to be able to distribute modifications on their own. | It is a qualitatively different process and result than | having to distribute modified versions directly. It rather | directly faces a deontology vs. consequentialism | question... if two different processes (distributing | changed contents directly vs. distributing patches to an | end user and providing combination software) produce the | exact same end results, on what basis will the law decide | that one is OK and the other is not, since allowing people | to distribute change lists provides an effective 100% | workaround to the existing illegality of distributing | changed works? | | I'm not trying to offer an answer here, I'm merely trying | to establish that talking about "books" isn't going to give | a good grasp on this situation. The metaphor simply doesn't | work. It's far too simple to capture too many relevant | issues. | shkkmo wrote: | The difference is that a "patch" implies that it is added | to exterior content which means that the question of | copyright infringement passes to how that exterior | content was obtained. | | Patching pirated work is still piracy, but patching work | you have purchased legitimately (or were given by the | copyright holder, such as a web page) is not piracy. | jhgb wrote: | Has your argument been tested anywhere? I'm quite sure | that for example in my country it would utterly fail -- | the origin of the work is irrelevant in our copyright | act. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > It rather directly faces a deontology vs. | consequentialism question... if two different processes | (distributing changed contents directly vs. distributing | patches to an end user and providing combination | software) produce the exact same end results, on what | basis will the law decide that one is OK and the other is | not, since allowing people to distribute change lists | provides an effective 100% workaround to the existing | illegality of distributing changed works? | | You're going about the question backwards. | | If we were basing things on reasonable consequentialism, | then downloading a modified version of something you | already legally possess would not be a copyright | violation. | wvenable wrote: | > I'm merely trying to establish that talking about | "books" isn't going to give a good grasp on this | situation. | | That's a fair point but copyright law was designed with | "books" in mind so everything is ultimately related to | that. Computers have really put a wrench in what was | otherwise a pretty simple system. | wvenable wrote: | A patch applied to a singular work for the purposes of | modifying it, I think the law could easily decide that | the patch _itself_ is a derivative work of the original. | A derivative work does not have to contain anything of | the original -- it just has to be made from it in some | way. | | However, something that it's own generic work or not | copyrightable (like a block list) would then not be | considered a derivative work. | elsjaako wrote: | How about I distribute a set of pictures with | instructions on where to paste them in The Hobbit? That's | like a patch or an ad-blocker. Seems fine to me. | shkkmo wrote: | This isn't quite right. The law doesn't stop you from | selling a book where you have written in the margins, you | just can't make and distrubute additional copies of the the | new combined work. Though perhaps you could buy books to | annotate in bulk and then distribute those legitimat but | annotated copies. Actually, that is a decent metaphor for | what an ad blocker is doing. | umanwizard wrote: | > I could even sell my modified copy. | | Could you? I don't find that at all obvious. | ivanche wrote: | Why not? You've never sold one of your used books? | umanwizard wrote: | Not one that I had edited to create a meaningfully | different work from the original. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | You can sell your copy, no matter what you have done to it, | at least by the First Sale Doctrine in the US, and similar | elsewhere. | | What you can't do is sell the rights to the modified work, | since they're in addition to the original work. When/if the | copyright in the original expires, then you can (and you will | have your own copyright in the modifications if they're | substantial enough). | | Crucially, you also can't make any copies of the modified | work and sell or distribute them, so your derivative will be | a legally-enforced one-off. | | It doesn't mean that you can't profit from your modification | of another's work (maybe someone will pay for your | marginalia), but it does mean that you can't profit from the | unauthorized duplication of another's work while their | copyright subsists. | sabas123 wrote: | > You can sell your copy, no matter what you have done to | it, at least by the First Sale Doctrine in the US, and | similar elsewhere. | | If you have a personal created copy of a copyrighted | product which you do not have the rights to, you don't have | a right to sell this copy right? (Specifically talking | about the copy and not the modification) | elsjaako wrote: | In the example you don't make a copy. | | You buy a physical book (also called "a copy of the | book"). You don't make the copy, you buy it from a | legitimate seller. | | Then you can modify that physical book, and sell it | again. | | If you want to sell a second one of the work you made, | you need to buy another physical book (another "copy of | the Hobbit"), modify that physical object in the same | way, and sell it again. | | You would own the copyright to your changes, so no one | else could modify "the Hobbit" the same way, and no one | else could publish instructions on how to do the | modifications yourself. | umanwizard wrote: | The first-sale doctrine says you can sell your copy of a | copyrighted work. But a copy that you've edited is no | longer a copy of that copyrighted work; it's a new derived | work. | | Reading the law, it's still not obvious to me that that | would be legal to sell, and I kind of doubt there is any | case law on this point. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | It's both: a copy of the original (but, critically, a | copy made by someone with authorisation to make copies) | and a copy of your work, which you executed yourself. | | You have the right to sell both, one as owner and one as | owner and creator. But you only have the right to make | reproductions of your own work, which means if you want | to make more copies of the complete derivative, you have | to buy new authorised copies of the original. You don't | have the rights to make your own copies of the original | to modify and sell. | umanwizard wrote: | > and a copy of your work, which you executed yourself. | | But the copyright on derivative works is held jointly by | both authors. | | Do you have any citations of case law backing up your | interpretation? I'd be really curious to see if a court | has actually ruled on this. | adhesive_wombat wrote: | The copyright on the whole derivative is joint, but the | the copyright on your contribution only is yours[1, p26]. | If your creative input relies on the original (e.g. you | interliniated a Harry Potter fanfic into a book), you | won't be able to sell only your contribution, because the | original copyright includes the characters and so on and | extends to your work. However, if you draw decorative | borders around each page (that are not based on the | original: no Ravenclaw logos!) you could photocopy the | pages, isolate the borders and sell them separately, but | you could not make copies that included copies of (or | copies of derivations of) the original text. | | As for the sale of the physical modified-but-uncopied | original itself: | | In the EU, this is permitted under the equivalent to the | first sale doctrine[2, p880][3, footnote 7], which covers | all IP, including trademarks and patents. There's now | some weirdness around Brexit which is what document [3] | is all about. | | The case law actually goes both ways in the US because | the concept of derivative work is not conclusively | defined in statute: | | * It's OK: Lee v. Deck the Walls, Inc. [4] aka Lee v. | A.R.T. Co. | | * It's not OK: Greenwich Workshop, Inc. v. Timber | Creations, Inc. [5], and also Mirage Editions, Inc. v. | Albuquerque A.R.T. Company | | These cases are almost identical and one on each side | even involves the _same_ defendant, but have opposite | conclusions. So as usual, the US gets weird and | jurisdictional with it. So, indeed, my original comment | is actually wrong in that _US_ First Sale Doctrine isn 't | guaranteed to apply and mostly seems to depend on the | circuit you get sued in. TIL. | | There are additional rules if the original is limited | edition or certain types of art (usually "visual" and | "limited"): | | * In the US, VARA means certain creators can, in some | cases, sue for damages if you destroy or modify their | work, even if you own it | | * In the EU there's the Resale Rights Directive (which | codifies what is often called droit de suite) which gives | royalties of each sale to the artist (but this right | cannot be transferred or inherited) | | [1]: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documen | ts/pdf/i... | | [2]: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a | rticle=1... | | [3]: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/brexit | _files/i... | | [4]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district- | courts/FSupp/9... | | [5]: https://casetext.com/case/greenwich-workshop-inc-v- | timber-cr... | ajayyy wrote: | If you made software that took a legally obtained copy of "The | Hobbit", modified it locally according to a scripted patch, | then displayed that to the user, then that would be similar. | Adblocking happens locally. This is similar to game mods. | amalcon wrote: | Somewhat offtopic trivia, but up until 2012 in the US, you | _were_ actually allowed to print a new copy of The Hobbit. Many | publishers with no relationship to Tolkien or his estate have | done this. Due to a quirk in international copyright law, it | had entered the public domain in the US. | | A court ruling in 2012 restored copyright to the work, which is | super weird since there are a lot of unauthorized copies still | floating around. | SahAssar wrote: | This sounded far too intriguing to not google a bit. I'm | guessing you're talking about this? | | > J.R.R. Tolkien first tangled with copyright law in the | mid-1960s when ACE Books discovered that the copyrights for | The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit had not been properly | secured in the United States by his American publisher. ACE | Books opportunistically published unauthorized paperback | editions of those books in the United States. Until that time | Tolkien's books had only been available in hardback. Tolkien | and his publishers reacted quickly by publishing their own | authorized paperback editions, but in order to secure | copyright in the United States again Tolkien was forced to | revise both stories (thus confusing the issue of what is | canonical in Middle-earth for his readers). | | > There remained a question over the status of the ACE Books | edition until several years ago, when a long-running | complaint by the Tolkien Estate was finally settled with | payment to the author's heirs. Until that time some people in | the entertainment and publishing industry argued that there | was still a copyright "hole" pertaining to Tolkien's works in | the United States. | | Source: https://middle-earth.xenite.org/why-are-some-people- | sued-ove... | jjk166 wrote: | They're referring to Golan v Holder, which affirmed that | the US could retroactively restore copyright to works that | had fallen into the public domain in the US under the US's | old copyright laws, but which remained protected by foreign | copyright laws which the US had adjusted to be in | compliance with. So basically The Hobbit, like many other | works, was copyright protected in other countries, but had | fallen into the public domain in the US; when the US agreed | to honor the foreign copyrights, it became copyrighted in | the US as well. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_v._Holder | SahAssar wrote: | Seems like they are related, from reading | https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/10/one-public- | dom... | | Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like | in the US The Hobbit never formally was under copyright | due to not fulfilling the requirements when published. It | remained that way until 1996 when URAA made the UK | copyright valid in the US. Golan v Holder then affirmed | that public domain works could be copyrighted under those | special circumstances. | sabas123 wrote: | This example actually popped up in my Patent class. This is | what I remembered. | | You are allowed to create a copy (and thus also in printed | form) of copyrighted material, _only_ for private and personal | use. i.e you _must_ recreate it yourself. | | As for selling a modified version, if it isn't modified enough | than you still infringe copyright of the original author. With | "enough" being something that needs to be defended in court if | challenged. | bell-cot wrote: | Can you have your kid or personal assistant do that for you? | | Over-the-trope example: A wealthy old English aristocrat's | head butler brings in his master's evening paper at the | kitchen door. Then snips out any stories "which might | disagree with master's digestion", before presenting the | paper to the old blue blood. | Dylan16807 wrote: | > As for selling a modified version, if it isn't modified | enough than you still infringe copyright of the original | author. With "enough" being something that needs to be | defended in court if challenged. | | Hang on. Does "modified version" mean the same physical copy | I bought and then modified, or a copy I made myself and then | modified? | | The way you worded that sounds like you're talking about | _both_ , but the former makes no sense. Why would it be a | copyright violation to buy a book, white-out one sentence, | and resell it? And elsjaako was definitely talking about the | former. | elsjaako wrote: | Exactly, I meant modifying a physical copy (like a physical | book from a shelf in a store), never actually copying | anything in there. | | I would be very interested to learn I was wrong about that. | withinboredom wrote: | You must be wrong, or literally every used textbook with | notes in the margins is infringing on copyright. Although | you could be correct, it's just literally unenforceable. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | > Why would it be a copyright violation to buy a book, | white-out one sentence, and resell it? // | | Because of exhaustion of rights working on first sale of | right to _make_ derivative copyright works not being | exhausted on sale. | | In USA under Fair Use you have pretty liberal rights | compared to most other copyright regimes AFAICT. In the UK | we don't have rights, not even under Fair Dealing, to | modify works, never mind sell modified works (without | permission of the copyright holder); they made an exception | to allow caching to make web browsing lawful! | | I can't buy your book, edit out part I don't like and | resell it as your book, and I can't sell it as my book | without your permission. Not even one copy. That's | reasonable to me (unless there was a [implied] license for | modifications to be made, say). I should of course be | allowed to modify the physical copy I purchased as that's | ordinary use and copyright shouldn't interfere with that. | Plasmoid wrote: | That reminds me of the PureFlix case years ago. Their shtick | was editing movies to be more "Christian-friendly". So what | they did was heavily edit a movie and burn it to a disk and | ship it to you. What they did was they also bought a legit | copy of the movie on disk and damaged the disk to unusuable. | They shipped you both, so you had a working edited disk and a | broken original. | | IIRC, they lost the case but I do see the merits in their | arguments. | tylorr wrote: | What about if I bought a book from a bookstore then I wrote | in the margins or highlighted some text and then sold it to | used bookstore? | pbhjpbhj wrote: | In my personal opinion the modification is insubstantial so | for copyright purposes you haven't created a derivative | work. There are probably ways you could make it substantial | but how would the rights holders ever know. It might | technically be a tort but there's no damage; what would a | rights holder win? | nybble41 wrote: | > It might technically be a tort but there's no damage; | what would a rights holder win? | | Statutory damages. | | Which highlights the essential flaw in allowing statutory | damages. | elsjaako wrote: | Turns out I'm wrong, at least in Germany and France. | | Authors have "moral rights of integrity" over their work, which | means you can't modify a work without permission of the author, | even if you own it. | | https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Moral_right_of_int... | jhgb wrote: | I'm mildly skeptical that a court would accept this reasoning | in cases of works with many copies and someone making a | change to one such personal copy. | contravariant wrote: | Well that's a bloody stupid idea. | tut-urut-utut wrote: | German law, the same as other continental law systems, doesn't | know anything about precedents, which are specific to Anglo-Saxon | law systems. | kwhitefoot wrote: | > German law, | | Could be. | | > the same as other continental law systems, doesn't know | anything about precedents, | | That's a rather strong and wide ranging claim that seems eadily | refuted. | | The doctrine of precedent exists in Norwegian law, see | https://www.scandinavianlaw.se/pdf/39-14.pdf | | Or were you being ultra-traditional and treating Scandinavia as | separate from Europe? | G3rn0ti wrote: | Of course, German justice system knows precedents in civil law. | Usually, courts respect higher courts' decisions. So once there | is a ,,Leiturteil" i.e. a decisive court ruling, you stand no | chance when you sue sb based on your personal interpretation of | the law before whatever court you file your case. | userbinator wrote: | This is a good decision because the alternative could lead to | absurdities like "is it legal to change the channel, turn away, | or even close your eyes if an advert appears on TV?" | RobertRoberts wrote: | This doesn't have to win, it just needs to get discussed until | enough corporations make a stink about this before extensions | become "illegal". | | Just like DRM, DCMA and many other total nonsense systems, they | just need to "appear" like something is bad before Google/Firefox | end all extensions entirely. | | What is the defense for this? | armagon wrote: | I think the defence is the market speaking. I'm not going to | regularly use a browser that I can't do ad-blocking in (or, | indeed, other extensions), and I'm not going to recommend it to | other people. The browsers technically-minded people install | for their family and friends do really make a difference. | durnygbur wrote: | nness wrote: | What an absurd case, so glad it would found in Eyeo's favour. | | > More dangerous still, any developer who writes code for an | offending browser feature could be liable to pay damages | | If you take this one step further, any browser vendor would be | liable for changes to their product if that change broke a | person's site, i.e. deprecation of any features. The mind boggles | at how horrific it could've been for the future of the web. | Mesopropithecus wrote: | And worse yet, imagine you're liable for not supporting each | and every new web standard that there is 100%, right away. Just | to illustrate how absurd such a ruling would have been. | rpdillon wrote: | I was wondering how Eyeo prevailed, given the "no derivative | works" aspect of copyright law. They mention an interesting | distinction I've never run across before in copyright: | | > The final 2021 Hamburg court decision, as successfully defended | by eyeo, establishes that there is a limit to copyright after | which the website author can no longer assert any right of | retention. This limit boundary exists between the code provision | level and the code execution level. | | The article doesn't go into much detail beyond this, sadly. | | It's a bit odd to me that they focus so much on HTML. Presumably | they would apply similar logic to JavaScript and CSS, but they | didn't mention them. | sbx320 wrote: | Yeah, the linked article is very shallow. Heise [0] goes a bit | more into detail, sadly the actual ruling isn't available yet. | | Quick Summary from the Heise article: Axel Springer tried to | claim that the website itself is a copyrighted work and | therefore an adblocker would not be allowed to modify it. | However the court decided: | | 1) Removing elements (ads) from being displayed does not modify | the originally transferred HTML, but only the data structures | as generated by the browser, which is allowed to be modified by | the user. Otherwise using a browser without images would also | be in breach of copyright. | | 2) The website in itself is not a copyrighted work, as there's | no original creative effort involved in generating the HTML. | | [0] (in German) https://www.heise.de/news/Landgericht-Hamburg- | Adblocker-vers... | mminer237 wrote: | I don't know German law, but "no derivative works" generally | only applies to things you reproduce yourself. If you download | a webpage, it's not copyright infringement to hit F12 and edit | a paragraph. You're not distributing a derivative copy. You're | just modifying the reproduction you were implicitly licensed by | the web server delivering it to you. If editing the HTML on | your own machine was illegal reproduction, just viewing it | would be too. (And in American law, if something is publicly | viewable, they can't condition your license to additional terms | you aren't required to agree to first. See _hiQ Labs v. | LinkedIn Corp._ : https://matthewminer.name/law/briefs/Miscella | neous/hiQ+Labs+....) | onli wrote: | The site you look at is a product of the browser after it | interpreted the HTML. While the HTML may be protected by | copyright, whatever the browser makes of it is not touched by | said author copyright. The browser is free to manipulate it | however it wants, and therefore the user is as well. This | includes the free use of adblockers. JS just does not matter | here as it also only manipulates HTML, CSS is just important | for styling the HTML. | | That would be my guess without having read the decision. | | Also, no derivative work because there is no work that is | published. You are always free to modify copyright protected | work, publishing it is the problem. It seems like this would | have been a second hurdle for Springer, but they got stopped | before this important fact even came up. | | Utter defeat for the evil ones. | throwaway81523 wrote: | It wasn't obvious from the title but this is about ad blocking | being ruled a non-infringement. See also: | | https://torrentfreak.com/adblocking-does-not-constitute-copy... | | which made it near the top of Reddit r/news. | wvenable wrote: | I'm confused. The HTML on a page should be automatically | copyrighted to the author already. It's absolutely an expression | of creative work just like a book, or software, or music. | | That being said, it doesn't follow that it would make it illegal | for any technology or any consumer to alter a website page | appearance. You are free to modify copyrighted works as long as | you don't distribute that work. | jeremyjh wrote: | I think the argument would be that a browser add-on, such as an | ad-blocker, is essentially redistributing the work because it | is modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it | to the browser user. Of course it is really the browser _user_ | who is doing the modifying - the extension is just their tool - | I 'm not sure if that is the basis of the ruling. | thomascgalvin wrote: | > [The ad-blocker is] modifying the HTML of another author | and then displaying it to the browser user | | But ... that's what the browser itself does. We aren't shown | raw HTML, we're shown a user-friendly rendering of that HTML. | [deleted] | thomasahle wrote: | Interesting. So could I publish a modified book, by | publishing a piece of software, that transforms a known book | into a new book. Then the user would be doing the | modification. | | Would that not be legal, as long as my software doesn't | contain pieces of the original book copied verbatim? | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | It definitely should be legal, especially as the user would | still have to get the original book to use it. | heavyset_go wrote: | You can sell software that decompiles, disassembles and | recompiles software. Same thing with software that | manipulates and edits existing copyrighted videos. | | Publishing it, however, is where copyright law kicks in. | Publishing is a specific right that you need to be granted | by the rights holders. | | I don't see how software running on a client's computer | that changes rendering of copywritten work is the same | thing as publication. Browsers, video players and Adobe's | products all allow users to view and modify copyrighted | works on their machines, and that isn't publication at all. | OlleTO wrote: | IANAL (and in the EU) - I believe you're not allowed to | republish/redistribute the modified copy of the book. That | said, your software is still legal for an end user to use | on any book they own. | | Same thing here, if the modifications were happening on the | server side and then sent to your browser that's probably | not legal | TomasEkeli wrote: | rather - you could sell a pair of glasses with yellow- | tinted glass that transforms how any book looks. that's | perfectly fine. | systemvoltage wrote: | I can buy a photography book and view it with super cool | vintage Rayban Kalichrome sunglasses thereby altering the | colors of the photographs. | bluGill wrote: | You can in some cases. Copyright law varies from country to | country, check with a lawyer if you need advice, and all | that... If what remains of the copyright work is less than | 10% then your copy is legal. When you modify something it | becomes a derived work, the question is when you have | modified it enough that it is considered a unique work and | not derived. | | Note too that trademark law can still apply. So your Harry | Potter can be in trouble even if the only thing that | remains is the name and the universe. (You can do a Harry | Potter as the horse in your western novel) | pkilgore wrote: | This comment is misleadingly reductive of complicated | questions of both Copyright and Trademark, I suggest you | take it down to avoid misleading people. Parts of it are | blatantly incorrect under U.S. (majority of readership | here)[1], other statements "you can do a Harry Potter..." | are conjecture that bury the actual legal question a | court would consider (likelihood of confusion), and no | lawyer in their right mind would offer such a | unconditional opinion without knowing specific facts of | specific cases. | | [1] See. e.g., https://grr.com/publications/copyright- | myth-ten-percent-rule... | _fat_santa wrote: | The way I see it, an ad-blocker is like a bottle of white- | out. Say you buy a book and take it home, inside the book you | find ads on various pages so you take your bottle of white- | out and mark them out. You haven't caused any copyright | infringement because you're not redistributing your book that | has the white-out on it. | nybble41 wrote: | > You haven't caused any copyright infringement because | you're not redistributing your book that has the white-out | on it. | | Even if you did... since when has distributing a used book | with extra notes, highlighting, or even white-out in place | been considered copyright infringement? You're selling an | existing, authorized copy--even if it was later modified-- | not making a new one. | nine_k wrote: | This puts services like Pocket or Instapaper under doubt. | | While in a browser the "reader mode" or an and blocker may | reformat content and remove ads, etc, it's done strictly | for the browser's user, the modified version is not | distributed. | | But e.g. Pocket allows to share a "pocketed" article with | all the ads and most formatting removed; they even | advertise some articles on their homepage. This may count | as distribution of a derived work. They of course give the | credits and a link to the original, but I wonder if some | publishers might be unhappy enough to challenge this. | jhgb wrote: | > is essentially redistributing the work because it is | modifying the HTML of another author and then displaying it | to the browser user | | There are still only two legal entities involved - the | operator of the web site, and the user displaying a page from | the web site. What's the third entity that would redistribute | a modified work to the user displaying a page from the web | site? | dragonwriter wrote: | > You are free to modify copyrighted works as long as you don't | distribute that work. | | That's...not quite right. | | You are free to modify _a legally owned physical copy of_ a | copyrighted work (and to redistribute that modified copy), but | you are not free to make a derivative work by copying-with- | modifications, except (in the US) insofar as that falls within | the bounds of fair use (and where it does, you can also | distribute it.) | guelo wrote: | You can make a derivative work as much as you want to, you | just can't redistribute it. | dragonwriter wrote: | > You can make a derivative work as much as you want to, | you just can't redistribute it. | | Well, no one is likely to know if you don't redistribute | it, but legally, no, you may not: | | 17 USC SS 106: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the | owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive | rights to do and to authorize any of the following: [...] | (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted | work;" | wvenable wrote: | This does seem to be the correct interpretation. The | consequence is that even reading a book aloud at home | would be a violation of copyright. However, that would | likely be defensible in court as fair use, if it came to | that. | nprateem wrote: | > It's absolutely an expression of creative work just like a | book, or software, or music. | | Bollocks. It's a data markup language. | nikanj wrote: | So are musical notes | nprateem wrote: | Only if you're autistic | nmstoker wrote: | How about the screws and bolts on an original piece of | furniture? Are they excluded from the creative work because | they're some sort of standard item? | shdon wrote: | Completely unrelated to the content of the article, but I find | this website very annoying to read as it changes the scrolling | behaviour adding some inertia. It takes a fraction of a second to | stop scrolling after I've stopped moving the mousewheel. This | makes me continually overshoot and having to compensate by | scrolling back a few lines because the part I wanted to read is | no longer in the viewport. When will web developers learn not to | mess with the default browser behaviour? | | As for the actual content of the article, I'm happy that the | court recognised the technical reality of the case. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Websites changing scrolling behavior is so infuriating to me | that I've considered doing my own Firefox builds that remove | the JavaScript functions for changing the scroll position. | | I can't for the life of me figure out why web devs think they | need to re-implement smooth scrolling. Web browsers already do | it out of the box, and trying to re-implement it never works in | all browsers. | kkjjkgjjgg wrote: | The explanation doesn't make sense. Of course the HTML code of a | web site should be copyrighted. | | The issue is whether this implies it should be consumed in a | certain way (ie rendered by a certain browser), which obviously | should be a no. And the other issue is whether a plugin or | "browser" that modifies it (in the client) should be considered | to be publishing a modified version. That should obviously also | be a no. | | From the article it is not clear if any of those concerns have | even been addressed properly. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-01-18 23:00 UTC)