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

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#81

Post by roblabla »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #41
nostrademons wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 encoura…

Brave does more than that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 Adblock Plus should fork its own web browser with built-in Acceptable Ads whitelisting. It'd be more honest than Brave.

Acceptable Ads is anything but honest. They take money to whitelist ads. Including ads from Taboola, one of the worst ad network. https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/google-microsoft-amazon-ta...

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#82

Post by Retric »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #66
taytus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case, that wouldn’t be google’s fault.

Depends. If Google seek permission from the page owner and the owner warrants the fact that photos are licensed for AMP use, then it's all good. If Google don't bother, just assuming they have the rights, then they're infringers. In copyright law the distributor is usually down for the largest punishment, that would be Google. "I didn't bother to check if it was an infringement for me to distribute the work" doesn't…

They did check. Now, that’s not nessisarily enough but it is a defense.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#83

Post by Marsymars »

roblabla wrote: post #81
hombre_fatal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave does more than that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18734999 Adblock Plus should fork its own web browser with built-in Acceptable Ads whitelisting. It'd be more honest than Brave.

Acceptable Ads is anything but honest. They take money to whitelist ads. Including ads from Taboola, one of the worst ad network. https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/google-microsoft-amazon-ta...

Now, I'm not a user of Acceptable Ads, but I don't think either their specific policy of taking money to whitelist AA-compliant ads from large companies, or having that policy apply to entities that have otherwise scummy ads is necessarily dishonest.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#84

Post by acdha »

adventured wrote: post #51
gpm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is less useful than it was in the 90s:

    Registrant Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC

    Name Server: NS-497.AWSDNS-62.COM
    Name Server: NS-1669.AWSDNS-16.CO.UK
    Name Server: NS-861.AWSDNS-43.NET
    Name Server: NS-1406.AWSDNS-47.ORG

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#85

Post by acdha »

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 don't modify or cache the content, only serve it to the user which the publisher approved serving it to, and increasingly with HTTPS they can't even see it. Moreover, the publisher is implicitly accepting that by being on the Internet.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#86

Post by paulgb »

icebraining wrote: post #58
blablabla123 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Right. In Aereo's case they even went as far as to nominally "rent" the colocated hardware to the user such that it was the user who was receiving the broadcast and transmitting it to themself for personal use. Which is clever, but the court ultimately decided that it doesn't work that way.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#87

Post by gpm »

acdha wrote: post #84
adventured wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is less useful than it was in the 90s: Registrant Name: PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC Name Server: NS-497.AWSDNS-62.COM Name Server: NS-1669.AWSDNS-16.CO.UK Name Server: NS-861.AWSDNS-43.NET Name Server: NS-1406.AWSDNS-47.ORG

Exactly, this tells us nothing.

If media were running this, the whole point is to not have it be publicly known, make people feel guilty for using the service.

If criminals are running this, obviously they don't want to be publicly known.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#88

Post by gpm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52
gpm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

Unusual, but not as far as I know illegal or anything.

It would be unusual for an illegal operation to be

- Agreeing to the laws of a US court

- Have business transfers and be a for profit entity in that sense, hell, to even have a privacy policy.

(of course, they could also have just written that for fun)

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#89

Post by ineedasername »

deytempo wrote: post #47
nostrademons wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 encoura…

Webmasters hate it when you do this but there’s nothing they can do to stop you

Yep, it's one secret technique they don't want you to know about.

Re: Aren't AMP Caches committing copyright infringement?

#90

Post by roblabla »

Marsymars wrote: post #83
roblabla wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acceptable Ads is anything but honest. They take money to whitelist ads. Including ads from Taboola, one of the worst ad network. https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/google-microsoft-amazon-ta...

Now, I'm not a user of Acceptable Ads, but I don't think either their specific policy of taking money to whitelist AA-compliant ads from large companies, or having that policy apply to entities that have otherwise scummy ads is necessarily dishonest .

- Taboola ads are scummy

- Acceptable Ads is not supposed to allow scummy ads

- Taboola paid to get their ads accepted

- Acceptable Ads is dishonest

If you google a bit, you'll find that the ads that get whitelisted under Acceptable Ads are nothing different from the normal Taboola bullshit. In fact, the whitelist is quite simple: They allow the whole taboola network to operate.

Post reply on HN