7 ms·
Isn't JS injection a copyright violation, since it creates a derived work? Or has that idea been shot down before?
by metageek 13y ago
Isn't JS injection a copyright violation, since it creates a derived work? Or has that idea been shot down before?
- ihsw 13y agoGood luck fighting against a team of lawyers with virtually unlimited budget. If you're lucky you might get a cash settlement but they'll still be screwing everybody else with impunity.
- shardling 13y agoThe idea would be that websites would take action, not end users. (Otherwise, how would it be a copyright vio?) I think we can assume that if it was infringement, Google would have an interest and the pockets to go to battle. IANAL, but I can't really see how it would be infringement, though.
- jerf 13y agoThis remains an untested field of copyright law, as far as I know. I've been waiting for literally over a decade for some test case on this matter to come up, and it never does. Perhaps by 2023.
- jmcqk6 13y agoIsn't this just a matter of 1) building a webpage where you own the copright 2) Have someone in one of the cities where this is happening browse to your page. 3) Copyright violated, and you get to be the test case!
- jacques_chester 13y agoCourts will generally refuse to take on manufactured cases. Their job is resolve real disputes. A lower court would probably just throw the case out. And if it didn't, the higher courts, which would set a widely binding precedent, would exercise their discretion simply not to hear the case. Yes: they get to pick and choose what appeals to hear.
- andrewflnr 13y agoIt doesn't have to be manufactured, someone just has to notice it already happening.