Forum Moderators: open
Several people pointed out that "a pop-up opens a new window" and therefore somehow it isn't wrong to block it (the pop-up).
I do want to point out that I personally hate pop-ups and I never ever present them as an option to my publisher customers. If they insisted, I might even "fire" them as a customer. I think they are that stupid and make users mad.
Back to my point, if the publisher wants a pop-up then it is an unauthorized infringing derivative work to block it. If blocked, the page is derived from the publisher's work. Individuals can do anything they want to with published copyrighted works as long as it is for their own personal use. Individuals and corporations do not have the right to distribute a "tool" that will modify a work and present virtually 100% of the work to the user of the tool. This is to the benefit of the tool writer without prior authorization of the publishers of the works being viewed.
Pop-up detectors are ok. These would present a blank page that says, "this page contains a pop-up - do you want to view?" If the answer is yes, the user gets the page, pop-up and all. If they say no, then they don't see the page and probably go back to the referrer. BTW, I personally would always answer no to this question and look elsewhere.
If search engines provided an option to filter pages that contain pop-ups out of the results that would be ok too.
I hate pop-ups as much as anyone but if some stupid publisher wants them then no one has the right to distribute a tool that will block the pop-ups to their benefit. Again, I'm talking about tools written for others to use here, not some program someone writes for themselves only.
And the argument that no one is making money from pop up blockers doesn't hold water even if it were true. Those that supply pop up blockers benefit from providing them or else they wouldn't do it.
People are welome to respond to this post in any way they want but it will take about 5 years for this and the autolink issue to wind its way through the courts. Only then can someone "prove" that I was wrong because I'm taking about the law, not how it "should" be in someones respected opinion.
but it is the creation and distribution of "tools" that change the content that is illegal.
And this claim seems to be your beef with Google Toolbar [autolink or popup blocker].
I disagree with it. Under this argument, Photoshop is also illegal since it potentially allows the end user to alter copyrighted pictures. [crop them, remove red eye, etc]. In additional, every HTML editor is illegal since I can download any website, edit it, and save it out!
Here are a few possible replies to this:
1) 'Photoshop requires a lot of user action to alter the pic. They have to hit a few buttons.' Well, Autolink requires explicit user action too! [For people who haven't tried it, the "Auto-" part of the name is inaccurate. It doesn't alter anything automatically.]
2) 'It is legal to edit the photoshop file, as long as you don't save it.' I'd argue that with autolink and popup blocking, the new page is never saved, so the work by definition is temporary.
A side note: normally web browsers browser are a read only medium. However, that has never been strictly true. IE has had "Edit in Microsoft Word" for at least 4 years now, it also has a 'Design Mode' which turns it into a web page editor. If you consider that a browser is also an editor, than these minor modifications become reasonable.
I'll strengthen your argument a bit though:
but it is the creation and distribution of "tools" that automatically change the content that is illegal.
In which case this statment no longer applies to Autolink [since it doesn't change anything automatically].
This argument still applies to popup blocker though, but I'll give you a different precedent there. All versions of Microsoft Word since since 6.0 have macros. Since 1997, there have been tons of macro viruses around, so Microsoft added a feature where they asked the user if they want to "Disable all Macros" whenever they open a document.
But this was annoying, so they added a feature where the user could turn off macros automatically. [Tools > Options > Security > Macro Security]. Macros in Word Docs are equivalent to Javascript on Web Pages. So is it legal to turn them off automatically? Microsoft has said yes for the past 7 years. The US Government has audited and bought countless copies of Word. So clearly this feature is legal, and there is precedence for modifying a page automatically by removing a feature.
Under this argument, Photoshop is also illegal since it potentially allows the end user to alter copyrighted pictures.
No this is not true. Photoshop is protected by the "Betamax" ruling. Betamax was the first VCR. It was argued that it was illegal because people could use it to make illegal copies (and maybe sell them). The court found that there was a redeeming use of Betamax, that is, the court found that because a Betamax could be used fairly (i.e. it could be used to make a recording for later viewing) then it was legal.
This is the same reason that TIVO can't be stopped from allowing people to fast forward through commericals. The "redeeming use" of fast forward is the ability to skip a broadcast all together. Although, I'm less sure of this because there has been no ruling I know of.
Autolink has no "redeeming use".
automatically change the content
You inserted "automatically" into my quote, I believe.
The need for the users to initate an action usually doesn't protect the facilitator as documented here:
[blog.ericgoldman.org...]
You may be interested in further discussion of autolink by the same author:
[blog.ericgoldman.org...]
The end user installs a popup blocker because they have bede the descision not to allow pop ups.
Mack.
The question is; "are pop-up blockers and the autolink feature of the Google toolbar allowed under US Copyright law?"
Both sides agree:
1. Pop-up ads are stupid, pop-ups annoy people, the people have voted and this is very clear to everyone.
2. Users are allowed to do anything to content delivered to them for their own personal use (I'm not sure this is completely true but it can be stipulated for the purposes of this discussion). Meaning: don't claim users can do anything they want for personal use in this thread, it is concided that it is true for the purposes of this discussion. Also, don't claim user's CAN'T change anything.
3. the Napster court ruling means that some devices/services can not exist if their major purpose or use encourges or actually violates US Copyright Law.
4. Some devices/serivces are protected if they have "redeeming uses" by the "Betamax" ruling. Betamax was the first VCR. It was argued that it was illegal because people could use it to make illegal copies (and maybe sell them). The court found that there was a redeeming use of Betamax, that is, the court found that because a Betamax could be used fairly (i.e. it could be used to make a recording for later viewing) then it was legal.
5a. A reasonable alternitive to Pop-up blockers has been presented in an earlier post on this thread called a "Pop-Up Detector" that detects pop-ups but doesn't allow the user to see the page unless they agree to see any pop-ups.
5b. Another reasonable alternitive to Pop-up blockers presented in this thread is for search engines to, at the users option or not, filter out sites that use pop-ups in the search results.
6. If Google's autolink was opt-in and if google paid to publishers who's work is changed a percentage of the value of the service for the right to change content in the way autolinks does, it might be a win-win-win for Users, Google and Publishers and it would be allowed under US Copyright Law.
7. If some device/service stops the delivery of a pop-up then it is changing the content.
8. Distributers of either Pop-up blockers or toolbars with the Autolink features benefit from doing so. If not in money then in goodwill generated.
9. Anti-Spam, Anti-Virus, Anti-Spybot, Anti-Adware, Photoshop and all programs that allow users to modify work all have a "redeeming use" under the BetaMax ruling.
10. The fact that pop-ups appear in another window doesn't in and of itself protect the distributers of Pop-Up blockers because the work as it was intended by the creator is being changed.
Did I miss any?
Did I miss any?
11. This is a fruitless thread.
Blocking a popup in no way alters or filters the content of your page, it's a browser control mechanism, not a filter, and it's built into the browser.
Blocking a popup in no way alters or filters the content
This is an objection to point 7 of message 34. Anyone object to droping point 7?
11. This is a fruitless thread.
No comments to my last post, I guess you were right, incrediBILL.
