On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 28 of 86:
Next »
« Previous
Drawing the copyright line
"The author of the site is explicitly allowing and therefore authoring the ability of the hosted ads to exist."

** There's quite a leap from someone allowing hosted ads to exist on their page to claiming that they 'authored their ability to exist', whatever that is supposed to mean. I can't see how merely permitting ads to appear on one's web page is tantamount to being their author and claiming the same rights as their author.

"Furthermore, the author has permission to display the third-party copyrighted material."

** Agreed, but that point was not in dispute. My contention was that because the copyright in the ads is vested in the originator of the advertising, the creator of the web page has no case to claim copyright infringement if those ads are removed from his page.

"Lastly, the author is not allowing anyone to change the content of the page, whether it is solely owned by the author or owned by another party and used with explicit permission."

** If the author of the substantive content of the page is not in control of the content or appearance of its non-substantive portion (i.e. the ads), how can he claim that his copyright is being infringed in respect of those parts of the page for which he is not directly responsible?

"If this specfic author were an affiliate that earned his living from the commisions of those ads, one could easily argue unfair business practices as well as copyright infringement. Not only on behalf of the directly affected author, but also for the owner of the ad."

** The 'unfair business practices' point might be argued if the page was redistributed by the end-user. That is not strictly a copyright issue, however. In practice, I believe it would be very difficult for either the originator of the ad or an affiliate to demonstrate a quantifiable (and hence actionable) loss of revenue resulting from the suppression of the advertising unless he could show that the reconfigured page had been viewed by a significantly large number of individuals who were thereby diverted from seeing the advertising on the unaltered version of his page. In essence, I don't see that the application of the Greasemonkey technology for the purpose of stripping a viewed web page of its ads is any different in principle to installing pop-up blocker software, in which case your proposition that the creator of the original page 'authored their ability to exist' implies that all those of us who use such programs are in a position to be sued by the creators of the pop-up ads and their affiliates because we thereby deprived the Orbitz travel agency or the manufacturers of the X10 camera of their rightful revenue.

"With that said, I think this goes a lot deeper than ad blocking. These scripts can be used to trransform pages in various ways inlcuding, inserting ads, inserting links to competitors sites, or just about anything else you can imagine."

** Perhaps so, but these points could only be argued if the modified version of the original page was being repackaged for public consumption. It will be interesting to see what considerations are actually taken into account in the practical interpretation of any 'copyright infringement'- and 'unfair business practices'-based lawsuits.

"The line must be drawn somewhere or copyrighted content on the web will be a thing of the past."

** I agree that the copyright line must be drawn somewhere, but I do not think this is the right place.
Posted by: Reality Checker   Posted on: 03/23/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

What a load of horsecr@p!  peter.koopman@... | 03/23/05
Since you asked?  ShadeTree | 03/23/05
"Your"  sinkemlow | 03/23/05
Not really  ShadeTree | 03/23/05
Good point - but not what you expected  ejhonda | 03/23/05
Okay on a more serious note.  ShadeTree | 03/23/05
GreaseMonkey is a choice  peter.koopman@... | 03/24/05
You asked  Squawkbox | 03/23/05
You asked  deepee912 | 03/23/05
Double edged sword  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
How can users verify?  deepee912 | 03/23/05
Simpler than you realize  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
re: Simpler than you realize  deepee912 | 03/23/05
True  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
Addendum  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
The user has to put in some effort  osreinstall | 03/23/05
Self-modifying Code?  Roger Ramjet | 03/23/05
Very good point  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
No just lips flapping  jjanks | 03/23/05
A lot more than you obsiously think it can  htotten | 03/23/05
Ever hear of the I-Search toolbar?  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
Mixed feelings....  htotten | 03/23/05
Copyright implications  Reality Checker | 03/23/05
there is the debate  IT Scion | 03/23/05
What exactly comprises the content of a web page?  Reality Checker | 03/23/05
I would respectively disagree  IT Scion | 03/23/05
Yes, think about the "benefits" of Gator  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
Drawing the copyright line  Reality Checker | 03/23/05
I can best explain it like this:  htotten | 03/23/05
Well  IT Scion | 03/23/05
you're such a waste of energy  blahblahblah | 03/24/05
copyright  blahblahblah | 03/24/05
it's the site owner's site -- that's why they're called the owner  blahblahblah | 03/24/05
Technically  voska | 03/23/05
Glasses  htotten | 03/23/05
Missing the point.  bargeemike | 03/23/05
I meant of course...  bargeemike | 03/23/05
The security issue is also the copyright issue......  htotten | 03/23/05
Sure  IT Scion | 03/23/05
It's MY computer, not their copyright  Zolar | 04/06/05
Addendum  Zolar | 04/06/05
I see you point  voska | 03/23/05
Yep.  htotten | 03/23/05
I'd say you are more than a bit on the arrogant side  bystander_z | 03/23/05
Rational people.  htotten | 03/24/05
Copyright? I think you overstate its power here  Root User | 03/23/05
Message has been deleted.  ZZmage | 03/24/05
Firefox in a spot?  IT Scion | 03/23/05
FF ppl have little say here.  doe_z | 03/23/05
Who Really Will Use This?  tbbrickster_z | 03/23/05
That's not even close to the point  IT Scion | 03/23/05
Not all extensions are equal  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
What I am implying  IT Scion | 03/23/05
Agreed  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
i have to agree  ZZmage | 03/24/05
Any bad extension will be quickly identified.  maxo_z | 03/23/05
Exactly  Sunny Jalolly | 03/23/05
Maybe it should be like MS  bystander_z | 03/23/05
At what point  IT Scion | 03/24/05
Bad Idea  neverhome | 03/23/05
block this stuff on my own website  Squawkbox | 03/23/05
It's not you I worry about....  htotten | 03/23/05
It IS the script that "joe user" is unaware of.  Squawkbox | 03/23/05
You Bet.  htotten | 03/23/05
This extension will not be installed by me  osreinstall | 03/23/05
Can -not- change registry  jdunck | 03/23/05
That depends  htotten | 03/23/05
Not So  osreinstall | 03/23/05
Well, its user beware, since it's there choice  FilledOut | 03/23/05
The problem is that with this type of tool  htotten | 03/23/05
Being that it is there choice to download and use  FilledOut | 03/25/05
making up problems  emcee_z | 03/23/05
Great.  htotten | 03/23/05
My point  emcee_z | 03/23/05
Proxomitron does this already  bjahraus | 03/23/05
I agree  CobraA1 | 03/27/05
Big deal  michael-t | 03/23/05
Since it does not change the original...  Timothyked | 03/24/05
ads are important  blahblahblah | 03/24/05
You must be an ad man?  Justcauz | 03/24/05
An unfortunate reality  IT Scion | 03/24/05
Also  IT Scion | 03/24/05
Agreed  Justcauz | 03/25/05
yes and no  CobraA1 | 03/27/05
I own my box  Justcauz | 03/24/05
This is far from new  Jebtrix | 03/24/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More