undefined | Better HN

0 pointshajile3y ago0 comments

Interestingly, the Google download page is copyright by Google.

Microsoft changing that page for their profit is 100% NOT fair use. Google should simply sue them for all those counts of willful copyright infringement at $180k each.

0 comments

8 comments · 4 top-level

11235813213y ago· 4 in thread

I don’t believe browser rendering is considered an act of publishing or distributing, is it? Either by the browser developer or by the computer user? I don’t see a mechanism of infringement. It would be different if Microsoft hosted a fake download page for Chrome on its server.

midoridensha3y ago

>I don’t believe browser rendering is considered an act of publishing or distributing, is it?

If it were, I think this could cause big legal problems for ad-blockers. Of course, one big difference is that ad-blockers are usually installed by the user, and so explicitly have the user's permission to change browser rendering, whereas MS changing the rendering of competitor's web pages is not expected by the user nor were they given any permission for this.

hajileOP3y ago

MS had to add content to the page then render that new content. That would count as a derivative work which would be covered by copyright.

Normally, when a user does this themselves, it isn't for commercial purposes which puts it in a different category (plus, the most popular modification involves stuff from loading onto a device rather than modifying the stuff that was loaded). This is far different in intent.

11235813213y ago

I don't think a browser render counts as creating potentially infringing content. I'm at a loss to explain why but I think it's the ephemerality of a browser render and the lack of a distribution method. Where are you getting the idea that infringement is possible at all by the browser itself, regardless of fair use laws?

ethbr03y ago

By this logic, no one would be able to serve banner ads on top of copywritten content.

Plenty of existing and historical malware browsers and plugins have injected ads.

Furthermore, because it's a full page width banner, it's not entirely clear whether Edge is rending something next to Google's page (i.e. in MS' browser) or in Google's page (i.e. commingled with their content).

1 more reply

sowbug3y ago

Standing in front of the TV to get your Mom's attention isn't copyright infringement.

anaganisk3y ago

Would that effectively kill adblockers legally, at least those which do cosmetic changes?

lionkor3y ago

it doesnt change it server-side, and doesnt serve a different website.

it injects html.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse