This is like witnessing a car crash, fascinating and horrible.
"German publishing giant Axel Springer.. is suing Eyeo, makers of Adblock Plus, on the grounds that changing HTML to block an ad creates a "derivative work" of Axel Springer's web-pages."
@rlmcneary2 @pluralistic There was a similar case with BT in the 2000s, they inserted their own adverts into web pages when serving them to UK customers. I noticed when they did it to my own site. They got a stern letter about copyright infringement, which it was, and swiftly dropped the idea.
The difference here is that the webpage is delivered directly to the user's machine, and the user then chooses how to modify the data.
@_thegeoff @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic I recall an ISP in the US that did this, but they explicitly got the end user's permission to do so, in return for free (or cheap) dial-up.
@rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic They've still got the issue of modifying somebody else's work though - if e.g. you (on your cheap ISP) load my gambling addiction website, and the ISP has inserted roulette adverts....?
@_thegeoff @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic IIRC, it was banner ads in a frame around the web page, so not changing the html as such.
But still, if I as a user want to consume your html that way, how is that different than using an ad blocker?
@rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic The difference is that a commercial organisation has adapted my work before delivering it to you. Put it this way, if you download an ad-encourager, running on your device, which inserts adverts into any web page you download, then fair enough. My data has been delivered to you as intended, you then chose to modify it for your own use.
But when a third party modifies it for their own profit, they breach my copyright.
@_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic also - even though the question of ISPs as «common carrier» has been on/off over the years of changing federal administrations and FCC heads, parsing web pages to identify ads and replacing them, or embellishing them with your own HTML most certainly falls outside that «get out of responsibility» protection.
@toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic Well, I understand html is just a code and choosing how to *render* it is up to the user browser.
If you place a Pavarotti record in your turntable and scratch it, for your personal use, are you creating a derivative work?
@microblogc @toriver @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic Good example. You're free to use/abuse your record as you wish once you've bought it.
But, on the other hand, I have the right to be miffed if you ask me to send you a record, the Royal Mail intercept it, and add their own adverts into any silent sections before delivering it to you.
@microblogc @toriver @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic Going back to the original point, the publisher's lawsuit is effectively saying that if you scan a book you own for your own use (legal), but delete a chapter or two which aren't relevant you're creating a derivative work. That's a bold move.
@microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic
Or, maybe even more similar to this case - if while listening to the album you sometimes lift the needle and advance it by a track to skip the one song on the album you're not fond of - have you created a "derivative work"?
@xvf17 @dragonfrog @SRDas @microblogc @toriver @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic "Giants Sued By People Standing On Their Shoulders".
@xvf17 @SRDas @microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic fine "lift the tone arm in order to move the needle"
@lispi314 @pluralistic @rupert @_thegeoff @toriver @microblogc @rlmcneary2 This was never about consistency or reasonableness. They want control and money, that's all.
@microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic I'm not sure adverts on pages are even the same thing. Web page authors don't know what ads are going to be there. They don't decide a particular ad will be there. Is the combination of ad and content really even a human work, or work of The Algorithm.
@ryebread8403
"actually, you are wrong. I am an artist. The webpage is my canvas, the algorithm, my paintbrush. The result, a conceptual work exploring hybrid techniques and technologically mediated creation. Interfering with this process is violating my intellectual copyright to this work, a piece titled 'enshrining legal protection of my right to maximise profits at any expense' "
@microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic
@ryebread8403
corporations have already been granted personhood, legally speaking. That the corporation personified retains the protections of intellectual copyright to his creative endeavours is a much smaller stretch than that.
(oh, and corporations will certainly take male pronouns, in the style of Enlightenment writers)
@microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic
@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing
Sure, but part of copyright is the thing must be made by human act. It has to be a decision. The corporation didn't decide to put those ads with their content. Something else added the ads, sort of at random. Their content is copyright protected, certainly, as is the content of the ads, but the combination might not be protected.
@microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic
@ryebread8403 In the same way Damien Hirst neither birthed or pickled a shark, nor plated the glass of its tank, but created through a process of mediated intention, so the corporation-artist does not hand-pick their ads, merely execute their intention through the medium of ad-serving platform. @microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic
I sometimes fancy that the endgame of corporate personhood is to enshrine incorporation as a protected category equal to race or religion, weaponising anti-discrimination laws to neutralise regulation and criminalise choosing not to purchase a product as harmful corporationist bigotry
@ryebread8403 @microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic
@wouldinotcallmyselfahumanbeing @ryebread8403 @microblogc @toriver @_thegeoff @rupert
@rlmcneary2
For the right, personhood:
1. Begins at conception
2. Ends at birth
3. Can be renewed through forming an LLC
@microblogc
Arguably you are creating a derivative work whenever you play the record, but your making of the scratch is protected by the "first sale" doctrine -- you're allowed to dispose of a copy you legally possess however you like, you just can't make new copies or solicit performances of it to others. Taking a legally obtained copy of the website code and "performing" it for yourself with alterations should be the same.
@_thegeoff @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic Modifying ads en route is normally not feasible anymore, since almost all web traffic is protected by TLS, but it’s not clear that it would be copyright infringement to change ads that the web site owner has not chosen and probably doesn’t have even know what they are to other ads the web site owner has also never seen. Whose copyright would be infringed? Does copyright arise when you yourself don’t even know what the work is?
@ahltorp @rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic In my case I wrote static HTML/CSS/jS, any interference with that is copyright breach.
Yes, fair enough, if you have some cross-site scripting that allows ad injection, then yeah, you're now talking about third parties arguing over who gets the space on your website.
But this was me publishing something, someone else asking for it, and an ISP manipulating that en route for profit.
@rupert @rlmcneary2 @pluralistic "if I as a user..." is the key.