You could always go satellite.

...or crap.

I think the only places where I've noticed the use of *bibyte is Wikipedia and... The Pirate Bay? The rest of the world seems ok with confusing the terms.

I am currently over my monthly limit (and not getting charged) however... if I start seeing messages like this I will definitely browse my own site; take some screenshots and threaten them with copyright violation.

Messing around with other people's pages is DEFINITELY a violation of copyright law.

1) The URL you link to is a frame; the top page is generated by Google, the bottom is from a website. The bottom page is not modified at all. Google isn't even serving the page; they simply provide you with the publicly accessible URL embedded in a convenient page. Further more; google is not inserting the frames page. You must ask for it yourself. Notice the difference from what rogers is doing?

3) Does add-supported microsoft works insert adds into your actual documents? I suspect it doesn't. But if it does, did you read the EULA? I would bet it includes language allowing them to do so.

4) Caches do not modify a page. Yes it is a gray area because of things like redistribution rights; but as the courts in the US at least have ruled that it's not a violation of copyright law I'd say the legality of caches is pretty clear. That being said; were the caches to modify the pages they cache then there might be issues.

5) Google didn't complain; other people have raised the issue for them. If google does complain however they certainly haven't done any distribution of a derivative work. Incidentally, even if they had it doesn't matter; breaking the law does not preclude you from seeking redress under the law. It might be hypocritical (and hypothetical in this case) but in no way illegal.

The issue here is that Rogers is inserting it's own content into the data streams of it's consumers. How they do it makes no difference. The fact is that by doing so they modify the creative work of someone else; and then send it to their customers. They do it without permission from the original author and without being asked by the end user.

There is also the possibility that the same technology could be used to modify the adds on a page (or insert more) such that rogers gets the money and the original page's owner does not. Worse still is the possibility that it could be used to censor parts of the internet without it being obvious. Government censorship is bad, but corporate censorship is worse. You can always fight your government but corporations are notoriously difficult to fight.

["telecommunications''
"communication "]

"telecommunications'' means the emission, transmission or reception of intelligence by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system;

Content of Messages

[Content of messages]

36. Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.

There is no such thing as page modification. Rogers and Google are both using a proxy to provide you with a page. The only difference is that Roger's proxy is their central server (the ip address you send your data to) while Google is using their webserver which happens to have a domain rather than an ip. there is no difference at all. Also, I am asking to view the original website. I am not asking to view a website with a Google's frame on it.

It's called adware. Opera does it, Google Pack does it. And no, it doesn't insert it into actual documents.

Yes they do. they provide an incomplete copy of the website, sometimes with a functionalities of site stop working.

Not according to what I've read from Google News! Their PR said that they were "very concerned". As I have stated above, both the frame and their cache corresponds to "distribution of derivative work" as you claim what roger has done. I am not arguing whether Google or Rogers broke the law. I am not a lawyer, and I probably know nothing about copyright laws. But I don't think you do either, no offense -- since you are not a law major. It's not us who decides if Rogers/Google broke the law. It's the law-makers and lawyers and judges.

No, Rogers is just using a proxy. and there is fundamentally no difference between adding a frame and "inserting content". frame itself is content.

as a real lawyer would say, pure speculation your honour! My client has done nothing wrong.

You're not getting it. Rogers is modifying the source of the page. That's what makes it a derivative work. How they do it doesn't matter. Secondly, GOOGLE DOES NOT PROXY ANY PAGES. See that link you gave? It points to a google image search result. Which is a frame. The top is the image you clicked on for more information (you asked for it, gasp!) and the bottom is the page the image is on. Not proxied, not modified. The original website the image is on, served by that webserver.

Yes, it most certainly does matter if it's something inserted into actual documents. If they are just showing adds on your computer then they aren't modifying your documents and thus can't possibly be making derivative works. Further more it doesn't matter if adds are inserted into a document as per an agreement you make in exchange for use of some software; because you signed an agreement.

If functionality of a particular website is dependent on other files then sure it can break. What the cache does is caches one or more files without modifying them. Got relative links in your pages? They'll break when served from a cache!

(a) in relation to a work in which copyright subsists, any copy, including any colourable imitation, made or dealt with in contravention of this Act,

You are missing my point. There is absolutely no difference between two methods in terms of visible effects. Both Google and Rogers are injecting their own material into pages. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL except for difference in technology.
Rogers is proxying out requests for HTTP protocol while Google is using its own servers for redirection.
nts.

You seem to be pinpointed on the fact that "the material is modified therefore its copyright violation". Absolutely not. Consider Google Mail. I send you an email. Google attaches an ad to the end of it. Is that "copyright violation" by md?

8. Your Materials.

You may be able to submit materials for use in connection with the service. Except for material that we license to you, we do not claim ownership of the materials you post or otherwise provide to us related to the service (called a "submission"). However, by posting or otherwise providing your submission, you are granting to the public free permission to:

* use, copy, distribute, display, publish and modify your submission, each in connection with the service;
* publish your name in connection with your submission; and
* grant these permissions to other persons.

This section only applies to legally permissible content and only to the extent that use and publishing of the legally permissible content does not breach the law. We will not pay you for your submission. We may refuse to publish, and may remove your submission from the service at any time. For every submission you make, you must have all rights necessary for you to grant the permissions in this section.

taking stuff out = modified. but honestly I dont give a *@#$ about modfied or not since as I said copyright violation in the first place is not about modifying work, its about claiming/copying materials you don't own as yours (ie patent violation). Your whole argument based on rogers "modifying html" therefore violating copyright law is completely baseless. But I'm just using this as an example -- Google takes your website and copies stuff onto their servers WITHOUT PERMISSION. In my opinion that's a bigger privacy concern than Rogers putting a banner up when you visit internet. For example, I own all my forum posts and webpages and I don't want my them to be indexed by Google, but it does it anyway -- and not only that it makes a copy of it on its server. Theres absolutely nothing I can do about it. Is that covered by some invisible EULA they serve me when a Google bug indexes my website?

here is a quote from the real canadian copyright law on copyright infrigement

I am afraid it is most definitely different. I am arguing that by modifying a page I own the copyright to Rogers has violated my rights as per section 28.2 of the Copyright Act ( R.S., 1985, c. C-42 ). This is only the case since rogers has modified the contents of the page. Had Rogers instead redirected me to a different page, hosted by them; which served a frame containing the warning and the contents of the original page below it it would not necessarily be illegal.

Using google in this example is faulty; as google does not insert such adds.

I believe a cache is covered as a "Retransmission", under section 31. Further more as a cache does not modify the files it retransmits (the files being the original works) it does not violate section 28.2. Furthermore you are not required to retransmit all original works, so Google would be perfectly within their rights to only retransmit certain original works. Note that an original work would be the html markup of a page, or images, and possibly even the presentation of the html when rendered in conjunction with any images. However the page is an independent work, not tied to the images (except as a final rendering, which itself a separate image). As an aside the Google cache might also be covered by article 28.3, and article 30.1 and as such the question of legality is far from clear.

As for your forum posts, you do own the copyright, but you have licensed them (here at least) under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Canada License. This is part of the user agreement for compsci.ca; all other forums have similar language (or should). You also own the copyright to your web pages; and you can indeed prevent them from being indexed (using a robots.txt file). However, by publishing them you give everyone the right to read them (that is the point). By reading your web pages (albeit by a computer program) they are using a right you explicitly granted, and using that reading to generate search results is most definitely covered by fair dealings as one of research, review, and possibly news reporting (depending on the contents). It's questionable as to if you are even required to invoke fair dealings exceptions, as the results are generated as a result of reading and gaining understanding; and then using that understandign to generate a new original work owned by Google.

Rogers is a distributing medium. Rogers have the power to distribute content in anyway it likes, just like tv ads can be inserted into tv shows and movies (or to fit more of Rogers case, before/after the content). The only rules it might be violating is the telecommunications act dan pointed out, which regulates how content is distributed to your medium.

Last time I checked it did. Thats just an example to your supposed "content modification"

Violation of copyright law is not about modifying content, its about redistributing content without permission. The point of issue here is not whether Google violated the Copyright law.

I don't know about you, but I post on tens of different forums other than compsci.ca and I am certainly not restricted by one such license.

Yes everyone is able to read my website. However, the whole point is I do not want my text and image to be redistributed. I fully grant permissions for people to view and review websites. The only thing I do not explicitly grant is for someone making unauthorized copies of my work. But Google did just that. So unless I tell Google not to, it will always do it. Do I need to tell ten million other people as well? Just imagine this, if it was you, instead of Google so save a copy of a few pages in say Microsoft's website with some broken images and host it on www.md.com, would that raise some eyebrows.

As I have previously stated, I don't claim to know the internet privacy act, and I have no interest in arguing whether Google broke any "laws" since its not my place to decide. And I really here used Google as an explicit example since it is not only the only web-crawling search engine out there. However, the point I am making is, Google is a much bigger privacy violator than Rogers. By stating otherwise its only hypocritical

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://compsci.ca/ as retrieved on 14 Dec 2007 22:16:53 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:0_LWKTfyLUwJ:compsci.ca/+compsci.ca&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: compsci ca

Bugz, you are completely missing the point, and I don't think anything anyone else will say is going to make a difference. If you're really that interested in it, go talk to a lawyer.

A summary for those like me who are too lazy/busy to read several books worth of replies: Rogers is the root of all evil.

Bugz, you are completely missing the point, and I don't think anything anyone else will say is going to make a difference. If you're really that interested in it, go talk to a lawyer.

How about Rogers should uphold net neutrality by not engaging in such practices? now thats something i would agree on and I am sure thats what tony's intentions are in the first place