Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

I would hope not, because by a similar argument adblockers and userscripts would also be illegal. I don't agree with what Comcast is doing, but using this argument could end up with an even worse slippery slope that leads to users not being able to consume content/customise their computing environment in the way they choose to. On the other hand, if Comcast is your ISP, all your traffic does pass through equipment owned by Comcast, which --- if you believe in being able to have control over your devices --- they should likewise also have the right to control. All the traffic on my home network goes through an adblocking proxy, and I could do things like http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/upside-down-ternet.html if I really wanted to. I certainly do want to maintain control over the traffic within my network.

View on HN

That happens at the user's choice at the user's machine, and isn't being distributed any further. The ISP distributes this modified content to their "customers".

Pretty sure that Comcast's ToS allows this and more.

Maybe, but that's a different argument than this thread, which is about copyright.

Doesn't matter. I strongly doubt Comcast allowing themselves to violate non-customers' copyright in their ToS can possibly hold up in court.

Are Comcast's ToS universally agreed on by every provider of internet services? If not, it's not allowed by its ToS.

There's a difference of distribution.

I am free to take a copyrighted book, and tear out pages. But I can't distribute that book. The results of the adblocker are not distributed.

There may also be an interpretation in which you're not even modifying the work by using an adblocker.

If you define the work as the source code you're not actually modifying it. You're just declining to download subsequent works (iframes, flash, whatever).

(not a lawyer)

At least in the United States (and the UK), the copyright owner of the original work has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, regardless of whether the derivative work is published, distributed or used in any other way.

Well, almost all bookstores puts stamps (sales sticker, discount info etc) on the books they sell. Is that a "derivative work" and thus "illegal"?

And this broad "distributed or used in any other way" doesn't seem very valid either.

Isn't it legal to write with a pen on your book copy if you're not the author?

"De minimis" (minimal) changes won't create a derivative work. What counts as "de minimis" has been debated extensively, but sales stickers certainly do.

Creating derivative work is only illegal if you do it without permission from the copyright owner of the original work.

I don't know what you mean by "doesn't seem very valid". It is the law [1].

Annotations normally create a derivative work. That being said, annotations often end up being covered by fair usage (fair dealing in the UK).

[1] 17 U.S. Code § 106 (2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

>I don't know what you mean by "doesn't seem very valid". It is the law

Apparently it's not the law, as the link doesn't contain the words "distributed or used in any other way" or anything to the effect of "any other way".

Plus, the "de minimis" thing and fair use exceptions mentioned in your second comment, already scale down the absolute "any other way" qualifier.

I think you may be misunderstanding something. The owner of the copyright has exclusive rights to prepare derivative works (or authorise someone else to do so). There are certain exceptions. What's unclear about this?

Maybe "used in any other way" confuses you? It's standard legal language and it means publishing, public performance, creating mechanical copies, etc. The possible uses of a copyrighted work are numerous and due to advances in technology that list grows constantly. This expression makes it unnecessary to list every known possible use, or yet-to-be-discovered futures uses.

>I think you may be misunderstanding something. The owner of the copyright has exclusive rights to prepare derivative works (or authorise someone else to do so). There are certain exceptions. What's unclear about this?

The fact that "certain exceptions" weren't mentioned in the first comment. I quote: "the copyright owner of the original work has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, regardless of whether the derivative work is published, distributed or used in any other way."

There was no reference to "certain exceptions", "fair use" and the possibility of "minimal" (and thus allowed) changes.

That, plus the use of "used in any other way" (a "standard legal language" as you say) as part of a casual language comment, left the impression to the reader that only the copyright owner or someone with permission from them can create derivative works, period.

So while this is cleared out now after the extra explanations, the initial comment was quite unclear.

A lot of corporate networks block ads at the DNS level I assume. I don't have an ad blocker at this client but I never see ads. Just another point.

>I would hope not, because by a similar argument adblockers and userscripts would also be illegal.

Does not follow. Ad block is set up by the user to block connections. Your work doesn't change; the user just doesn't see the full work. Kinda if I gave you glasses that blocked the color red and then you went and looked at an art gallery wearing them. The art hasn't changed, but the item I gave you, which you willingly wore, just stops some part of the art from being displaying into your eye.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com