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

51–60 of 100 posts

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#51

Post by adventured »

gpm wrote: post #46
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.

Does anyone actually know who is running outline.com? Are they definitely infringing on copyrights or is that just a popular assumption? I've been wondering for awhile, given how successful it is at navigating paywalls, if it might actually be run by the newspapers themselves as a way of attracting potential customers. Giving them content to keep them interested while guilting them into paying.

You can pretty easily do a historical record look-up on the domain and its DNS. It does not appear to have any ownership tie to major media.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#52

Post by JumpCrisscross »

gpm wrote: post #46
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.

Does anyone actually know who is running outline.com? Are they definitely infringing on copyrights or is that just a popular assumption? I've been wondering for awhile, given how successful it is at navigating paywalls, if it might actually be run by the newspapers themselves as a way of attracting potential customers. Giving them content to keep them interested while guilting them into paying.

> Does anyone actually know who is running outline.com?

The only hint I can get is their Terms of Service are governed by California law and the courts of Santa Clara County [1]. (It also refeeences “business transfers” in its privacy policy [2], implying it’s a for-profit entity.)

Otherwise—and this is unusual for any legitimate activity—I can find no reference to any legal person anywhere on their site.

[1] https://outline.com/terms.html

[2] https://outline.com/privacy.html

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#53

Post by comboy »

kdeenanauth wrote: post #49
shereadsthenews wrote: post #7

Google also caches and serves everything else its robot finds, so if this was a problem it was already a problem long before AMP.

Caching can be disabled https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en But per the wording "noarchive - Prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page" - and it seems likes it is technically just avoiding showing the cached link.

But we are in the f up territory. Does EU law says anything about meta tags? If not, then unless explicitly allowed you can't copy it.

On so many levels.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#54

Post by blablabla123 »

paulgb wrote: post #21
lugg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

About Aereo, could you elaborate more on that? I never heard of it, checking the Wikipedia article, I cannot find the word browser inside.

I'm seriously interested in that argument because years ago I was considering an idea to do exactly that. I mean look at Rubinius (Ruby in Ruby) or PyPy (Python in Python). Those are actually serious projects that are more than just research - as far as I know some thing can be even done faster that way and gave inspiration for the reference implementation.

Speaking about JS, React is basically re-implementation of the DOM in JS with an XML like language.

Nobody minds if Chrome and Firefox include Translations that transforms websites, that people use screen readers etc. I think there are limits of reason of what a content providers can restrict.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#55

Post by NullPrefix »

kdeenanauth wrote: post #49
shereadsthenews wrote: post #7

Google also caches and serves everything else its robot finds, so if this was a problem it was already a problem long before AMP.

Caching can be disabled https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en But per the wording "noarchive - Prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page" - and it seems likes it is technically just avoiding showing the cached link.

I'm pretty sure you can disable AMP for your site too.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#56

Post by icebraining »

lixtra wrote: post #39
xiphias2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those have an implied license by the copyright holder.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#57

Post by icebraining »

realusername wrote: post #25
sam0x17 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The DMCA ties the two by prohibiting users of copyrighted works from circumventing technological protection measures. It could be argued that bypassing CORS applies.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#58

Post by icebraining »

blablabla123 wrote: post #54
paulgb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. About Aereo, could you elaborate more on that? I never heard of it, checking the Wikipedia article, I cannot find the word browser inside. I'm seriously interested in that argument because years ago I was considering an idea to do e…

Outline is doing a transformation and then serving a copy of it, not just doing it in place with the copy that the user lawfully obtained.

Aereo tried to do the same for TV broadcasting (they were claiming they didn't copy, just digitalize and transmit on behalf of the user), and the courts struck that down.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#59

Post by nwellnhof »

But the way Google uses AMP goes way beyond caching, at least in the way news articles are presented. Do I really give anyone an implied license to republish AMP content on their own properties as soon as I put some AMP pages online? There might be some limited control by using robots.txt but that's rather coarse-grained.

My main irk with AMP is that it's mostly an all-or-nothing solution. I'd love to publish AMP pages without allowing anyone to republish my content. The way Google implements AMP also seems like a huge antitrust issue given their near-monopoly in search. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the next EU fines will be over AMP.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#60

Post by realusername »

icebraining wrote: post #57
realusername wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The DMCA ties the two by prohibiting users of copyrighted works from circumventing technological protection measures. It could be argued that bypassing CORS applies.

CORS isn't a technological protection like a DRM and isn't design as such, it's purely a security measure, by default you don't even specify it. Browsers are free to ignore them as they wish (but with increased security risks of course).
Post reply on HN