
Comcast to Customer Who Noticed Secretly Injected Code: Maybe It’s Your Fault - gridscomputing
https://thenextweb.com/insights/2017/12/11/comcast-continues-to-inject-its-own-code-into-websites-you-visit/
======
Crontab
It's a crying shame when you need a VPN to protect yourself from you ISP.

~~~
AFNobody
It would be a shame if your VPN was in the slow lane and could only push 56k
because fast lane services being sold to "unsavory" businesses were against
policy at the 2 major residential ISPs you can choose from.

~~~
dorchadas
And only one of which offers reasonable speeds at reasonable prices.

------
smilekzs
> The user should have checked their email spam folder

How about NO?

------
tehlike
More reasons to use free letsencrypt certs.

------
GCU-Empiricist
This is yet another example of why Comcast could not pay me to use their
service.

~~~
scarface74
Many people don't have a choice. Either Comcast or slow DSL from the phone
company.

~~~
steanne
i have the choice of comcast, slow dsl from the phone company, or fiber from
the phone company. i choose the slow dsl because that has consumer protections
from the state's utility commission. the fiber does not. the phone company is
not too happy with me.

~~~
khedoros1
I have the choice of Cox (which did this injected pop-up thing a few years
ago, and for the same reason), and getting creative with mobile/satellite
providers.

Phone company says that I'm too far for DSL, and they haven't deployed fiber
to this area.

It would be nice if I had some kind of actual choice.

------
steanne
a lot more discussion here[0], including responses from comcast's own
jlivingood[1]

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15890551](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15890551)

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jlivingood](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jlivingood)

------
dang
Url changed from [https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-
secre...](https://gizmodo.com/comcast-to-customer-who-noticed-it-secretly-
injecting-c-1821235362), which points to this.

------
larrik
I love bashing Comcast, but this seems extremely overblown.

~~~
philipwhiuk
You think it's overblown they are performing DPI and a MiTM attack on content
traversing across their network?

~~~
kemitche
IF Comcast had actually been legitimately trying to contact the customer via
other means (phone, letter, email) AND it was a significant issue (end of life
on modem), then it's not unreasonable.

I rather doubt that Comcast tried the phone route, and the article indicates
that the modem was not EOL, so overall I think the injection was ridiculous.

~~~
pdkl95
Willful copyright infringement[1] doesn't go away if you cannot contact the
recipient of the unauthorized copy by "phone letter, email". Comcast is
infringing the copyright of every webpage they modify without permission.

[1] Modifying an HTML file[2] (or any other protected work) creates a
"derivative work"[3\\. Without permission from the original author,
distributing a copy of a derivative work is copyright infringement.

[2] Any "original work of authorship"[4] gains copyright protection when
"fixed in any tangible medium of expression ... from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
aid of a machine or device."[4].

[3] "A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or
other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship, is a 'derivative work'."[5]

[4] 17 U.S. Code § 102
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102)

[5] 17 U.S. Code § 101
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101)

~~~
nkurz
_Comcast is infringing the copyright of every webpage they modify without
permission._

They may or may not be, but you are foolish to assert that they are infringing
based on on a few select quotes. Are you also going to assert that it's also a
copyright infringement every time a browser caches part of a web page to disk,
or when a user runs an script to change the layout of a page? Both arguments
have been made, but as far as I know, there is no clear precedent for either.
For better or worse, US law is based on case-law, and unless you can point to
some previous cases where modifying a web page on the fly has been judged to
be copyright infringement, there is nothing open-and-shut about it.

~~~
pdkl95
> you are foolish to assert that they are infringing based on on a few select
> quotes

I only included a few quotes for reference. My argument is based on my study
of copyright law over the last ~25 years.

> browser caches part of a web page to disk

Obviously not a derivative work as the HTML file is not changed. Also, this is
a fair use that doesn't publish additional copies (and thus doesn't impact the
market for the original work).

> a user runs an script to change the layout of a page

First Sale doctrine states that the publisher's rights do _not_ extend to
_how_ someone uses their (legitimately acquired) copy.

> there is no clear precedent for either

The only part that is at all unclear are the few cases that ruled on the
_temporary, ephemeral copies_ that a computer makes during normal use. These
cases all resulted in different rulings, but the most recent of which (which
may only have limited precedent) came to what should be the obvious conclusion
that technically necessary temporary copies were a fair use.

None of this, however, is relevant to Comcast making new derivative works
based other people's HTML files without a license and providing a copy of
those derivative works to their customers. Providing unauthorized edited
copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to be a fair use. ]

~~~
nkurz
_Providing unauthorized edited copies to 3rd parties has never been argued to
be a fair use._

Well, it's definitely been argued, although you are right that eventually the
court decided that it was not fair use to distribute "family friendly" version
of movies. Perhaps counterintuitively, despite ruling strongly against
CleanFlicks, the judge ruled that the because the changes were based only on
redaction, the edited version was _not_ to be considered a derivative work!
[https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-
ruled-i...](https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2006/07/10/cleanflicks-ruled-
infringer/)

The Family Movie Act of 2005 further codified this right to redact, using the
argument that if the edited version was only used for a "private home
viewing", it did not violate the right of distribution:
[https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html](https://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061704.html).

 _None of this, however, is relevant to Comcast making new derivative works
based other people 's HTML files without a license and providing a copy of
those derivative works to their customers._

Would a similar argument as to single viewer experience work in Comcast's
case? I don't know, but in the absence of settled case law, I wouldn't bet
against Comcast's lawyers getting a court to give the answer they want.

But maybe I can make it an easier question: Based on what they've done so far,
what are the chances that Comcast will be sued for copyright infringement and
lose? I don't have a lot of money to bet, but I think the chances are low that
successful lawsuit against Comcast will be brought for what they've done. Do
you think otherwise?

