Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeremyjh | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> [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.

Yes, but this kind of understanding can't be used by a "media" company infamous for its rag tabloids (and a former editor-in-chief fired because he fucked his employees and kept a laminated fake copy of a divorce certificate to prove that he is really, really, really not married) to force users to watch their ads. Have you no business sense??!? /s

By the way, Axel Springer SE, the "media" company suing, is investing heavily into the US market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Springer_SE

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.

> 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.

In the 9th Circuit, there's precedent that buying a book, cutting up each of those pages, and then selling them individually is derivative work. The 2nd Circuit believes that's precluded by First Sale Doctrine.

(I think most people would agree that the 9th Circuit's decision is wrong, though, but it remains binding precedent in that circuit.)

It probably would be relevant to copyright, but it would also be fair use as commentary/criticism rather than being a derivative work.

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.

> 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?

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?

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

I can buy a photography book and view it with super cool vintage Rayban Kalichrome sunglasses thereby altering the colors of the photographs.

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.

Copyrighted*, not copywritten

It definitely should be legal, especially as the user would still have to get the original book to use it.

rather - you could sell a pair of glasses with yellow-tinted glass that transforms how any book looks. that's perfectly fine.

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)

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...

Too late to edit, but I stand corrected

That'd mean that automated Photoshop filters would also be this same category, so would Snapchat, that doesn't make sense...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com