Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement? • Hacker News Board

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#21

Post by paulgb » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 2:31 AM UTC

lugg wrote: post #19

throwaway427 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, feeding AMP to consumers is a lot different than, say, https://outline.com/ which is straight up copyright infringement.

If that is copyright infringement then so is Google Chrome. Outline is a browser in a browser. If it were accessing unauthorised content in a shady way I would say they have a leg to stand on, but serving up content to Google different from what it serves to the user is already borderline illegal for a variety of reasons. (It's a misrepresentation) I don't think anyone is wanting to go down that road. Remember with t…

> serving up content to Google different from what it serves to the user is already borderline illegal for a variety of reasons

This is called spoofing. Google doesn’t like it because it makes for a bad user experience, but it is certainly not illegal (or even borderline).

I think the legal argument you’re trying to make died with the Aereo supreme court decision. The ”outline is a browser in a browser” statement is cute but it doesn’t pass the duck test.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#22

Post by glitchc » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 2:35 AM UTC

jforman wrote: post #15

glitchc wrote: post #5

Any communications channel transmitting data is committing copyright infringement. It’s not like the source bit is deleted once received at the destination. That’s how the internet works.

Copyright law is more complicated than that, but regardless OCILLA drastically reduced copyright liability for the pipes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...

I was just taking the argument to its logically absurd conclusion. Of course, copyright law is more complicated than that.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#23

Post by underwater » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

nvahalik wrote: post #4

But don’t you have to opt-in to AMP to begin with? Wouldn’t there be some sort of implicit permission in providing the AMP formatted content to begin with?

You can deploy and AMP page, and set a meta header that announces it exists. This is not an explicit opting in to Google's AMP cache though. That's what the author means by implicit license.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#24

Post by judge2020 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 2:50 AM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #20

marktolson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?

Because this is disallowed by CORS/single origin policy

I think the OP stated a "what if", ie "What if CORS didn't exist?" I also think you could argue "What if outline loaded articles in an iframe?" (and at the same time "what if same-origin policy wasn't a thing?") If it was technologically possible, would it be infringing?

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#25

Post by realusername » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 2:54 AM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #20

marktolson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?

Because this is disallowed by CORS/single origin policy

CORS is just a security feature, it does not imply anything about copyright or terms of use.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#26

Post by hahajk » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

marktolson wrote: post #16

throwaway427 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, feeding AMP to consumers is a lot different than, say, https://outline.com/ which is straight up copyright infringement.

What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?

That sounds like Reader View. I don’t think copyright law requires rendering the entire webpage exactly as the server requests.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#27

Post by devoply » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 2:59 AM UTC

Best way to kill AMP is to increase bandwidth limits on mobile internet. That's the only justifiable reason for this monstrosity to exist. I can't wait to see AMP die until then I will bide my time...

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#28

Post by KingMachiavelli » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 3:05 AM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #20

marktolson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?

Because this is disallowed by CORS/single origin policy

CORS is really just a security for embeded pages and elements. It's not intended and cannot enforce usage restrictions/rights since it requires the client (browesr) to honor the setting. If I wget a page and strip the text from it, I'm not embeding the page in any manner so CORS is irrelevant. The current 'aggrement' for respecting copyright (wether it would hold up in court even with a TOS is beyond my knowledge) is robots.txt which, I'll admit is pretty dated and a very poor solution for dynamic pages and still requires client .

The best solution for copyright/paywall enforcement is to roll your own. If the request doesn't have the required cookie to access the full article, don't respond with the full page. This works very well for dealing with sites such as outline.com .

Sites like outline.com would be really interesting/usefull if they allowed you to upload your login cookies so that they could get paywalled articles and still strip the ads.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#29

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 3:05 AM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #20

marktolson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?

Because this is disallowed by CORS/single origin policy

[deleted]

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#30

Post by zelon88 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 3:05 AM UTC

hahajk wrote: post #26

marktolson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if outline.com simply did a GET request on the source from the browser, stripped out paywalls and ads and served the content from the source server. Is that still copyright infringement?

That sounds like Reader View. I don’t think copyright law requires rendering the entire webpage exactly as the server requests.

I see no difference between visiting a webpage with a browser or through a program which modifies the content prior to delivery. That's exactly what any a browser plugin does.