Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

ctrl.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#31

Post by xiphias2 »

zelon88 wrote: post #30
hahajk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The big difference is that if the program is run on the server of somebody else, it needs rights for redistribution (copyright) for the redistributor server, which is a different entity than you (who is running the local program).

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#32

Post by Causality1 »

One thing I've never seen addressed is the way AMP hijacks android Chrome behavior. It hides and then locks out the address/menu bar until the user scrolls all the way to the top of the page and then drags down again. If any other website is allowed to do this I haven't seen it and would love a way to disable it.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#35

Post by gnicholas »

Causality1 wrote: post #32

One thing I've never seen addressed is the way AMP hijacks android Chrome behavior. It hides and then locks out the address/menu bar until the user scrolls all the way to the top of the page and then drags down again. If any other website is allowed to do this I haven't seen it and would love a way to disable it.

It does a similar thing on iOS and is super annoying. I run into it on Firefox Focus (where I google most often), but presumably it affects other browsers as well.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#36

Post by nostrademons »

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's basically what Brave does - web browser with a built-in adblocker. Or, for that matter, Chrome with any adblocking extension. It's not illegal, but it's not exactly popular with webmasters, and they're within their rights to block access to these browsers. In practice it tends to evolve into a cat-and-mouse game where adblockers block the ads, websites try to detect the adblockers and show you a pop-up encouraging you to turn off the adblocker, adblockers try to block the pop-ups, and so on.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#37

Post by throwaway400 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #31
zelon88 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The big difference is that if the program is run on the server of somebody else, it needs rights for redistribution (copyright) for the redistributor server, which is a different entity than you (who is running the local program).

Exactly, people want to make this a simple case (outline is really just a browser by a different name) but copyright isn't a bright line domain: intent matters and outline is just re-hosting other peoples content for broad consumption.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#39

Post by lixtra »

xiphias2 wrote: post #31
zelon88 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The big difference is that if the program is run on the server of somebody else, it needs rights for redistribution (copyright) for the redistributor server, which is a different entity than you (who is running the local program).

This would be true for every switch on the route.
Post reply on HN