I think this is actually illegal. If you own the copyright for your content and they inject into it, they are creating a derived work without your permission.
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.
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)
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the title were "Comcast injects ... to show notices of reported copyright infringement against their account," there would probably be less confusion in the comments here.
I'm sure a content publisher could argue that by stating that the transport layer does not transform the content, that any such transformation (that the end user perceives) constitutes harm to them.
Such is law. That header gives them a basis for constructing this argument.
>Today, most mainstream acts obtain prior authorization to use samples, a process known as "clearing" (gaining permission to use the sample and, usually, paying an up-front fee and/or a cut of the royalties to the original artist). Independent bands, lacking the funds and legal assistance to clear samples, are at a disadvantage - unless they seek the services of a professional sample replay company or producer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_issues_surrounding_music...
You do often see some artists turn a blind eye to sampling though. Particularly dance artists because many of them know their entire genre exists of the back of sampling. So it would be counterproductive / hypocritical for them to chase after royalties
Sample clearance is generally not required if:
- You are just using the sampled music at home.
- You are using the sample in live shows. This is because,
usually, you are not making copies and the owner of the venue
pays the blanket license fees to performing rights organizations
such as Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) or American Society of
Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP).
- You plan to distribute copies to the public but meet one of the
following: (1) an average listener would not notice the similarities
between your end product and the sample, or (2) your use of the
sample falls under the "fair use" doctrine. For more information on
these, see "Defending a Lack of Sample Clearance," below.
All music sampling of commercial works is illegal without a license. Even a non-recognisable 2 second snippet, if spotted, can get you huge fines.