Guy Reveals Airtel Secretly Inserting JavaScript, Gets Threatened With Jail For Criminal Copyright Infringement
from the copyright-law-at-work dept
Last week, an Indian blogger, Thejesh GN, discovered that mobile operator Airtel was injecting javascript into subscribers' browsing sessions, which is both incredibly sketchy and a huge security concern (not to mention raising net neutrality issues on the side). He posted the proof to GitHub and tweeted about it:
And the Solicis Lex lawyers, to show they're not messing around, cc'd the police on the letter they sent:
The said code is closed source software and our client is sole proprietor of the same. Therefore, no one can use the said code without obtaining license from our client against payment of fees and/or royalties and on commercial and legal terms acceptable to our client. Your aforementioned actions constitute a blatant violation of our client's copyrights and other proprietary rights in the said code.Remember: all Thejesh GN did was show the code that Airtel inserted into his browser. If Flash Network thinks that showing the code that it dumps into each of your browsing sessions is criminal copyright infringement, just about anyone who does a "view source" could be guilty. That's a plainly ridiculous reading of the law.
On top of that, the lawyers sent a DMCA notice to GitHub, which caved in and took it down:
Absolutely everything about this is insane and bad. The initial injections by Airtel/Flash are bad and dangerous. Both companies should be called out for such javascript injections. But, Flash's response to not only threaten a completely bogus copyright takedown/cease and desist claim, but also to allege criminal violations that could lead to jail time just adds an insane layer on top of all that. Even arguing that merely posting screenshots of the injected code is civil copyright infringement is crazy. And then issuing a DMCA takedown to GitHub (not to mention GitHub agreeing to take the screenshots down...). All of it is ridiculous and a clear abuse of copyright law to silence someone who revealed Airtel and Flash Network were up to questionable activities.
For those who argue that copyright is never used for censorship: explain this story.
Of course, it all seems to be backfiring in a big way. Flash may have wanted to hide what they were up to, but now it's getting much, much, much more attention. Maybe, next time, rather than threatening whistleblowers of your bad practices with claims of criminal copyright infringement, Flash and Airtel will think more about their own crappy business practices that put users at risk.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cease and decist, copyright, criminal copyright, dmca takedown, free speech, india, injection, israel, javascript, javascript injection, thejesh gn
Companies: airtel, flash network, github, solicis lex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just because criminals can claim "copyright", doesn't make copyright bad.
But logic by Techdirt writers goes only one way: ANTI-COPYRIGHT.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This capability is why everyone clams up around Stingrays
That is why you thought they were overreacting. They didn't want you to know they had on demand bug and trace capability for anyone carrying a phone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Addendum
I was expecting to see an additional paragraph:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Abolish Copyright
Same thing. Copyright in the 21st century is about censorship. The endless parade of 'anomalies' should be convincing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's indeed sick
I first red it as "insane lawyer" :D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just because criminals can claim "copyright", doesn't make copyright bad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright infringement
By making those unauthorized derivative works based on all those copyrighted web pages, it Airtel and Flash Networks who are engaging in criminal copyright infringement.
That's how I take it, when I put on my web-author hat!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MITM attacks
For anyone to threaten a criminal prosecution and worse yet to have the legal basis to do so...
Is beneath disgusting.
E
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jail for merely thinking about infringing
How would you separate 'thinking about' infringing, vs thinking about fair use?
Maybe if you look like you are thinking about infringement, that is probable cause to detain you and obtain a confession.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: MITM attacks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A couple of things on this one...
Secondly, are they actually claiming separate copyrights on two lines of unremarkable Javascript code? Surely this can not actually be copyrightable.
Lastly, (ignoring the use of 'couple' above) or maybe even anyone who merely thinks about doing a "view source", according to paragraph above...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: MITM attacks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So just pull the source...
Anyone actually try to pull the code and see what it is? After all, it IS listed in HIS code that he posted...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Closed source" does not mean "proprietary"; it means that the source is not made available.
Yes, there's a difference. As a programmer I use several proprietary third-party libraries in my work, which I have the source to as part of the licensing for the library. Every company I've worked at has had this as a requirement; you don't want to use a closed-source library where the source code is not available at all, because when bugs arise you want to be able to get inside the code and fix it. The thing is, though, we paid for this proprietary source code and received it under license from the developers, as part of a contractual relationship with explicit obligations on the part of both parties.
Because of the way JavaScript and web browsers work, when a script is put on a webpage, the source is sent to the end-user automatically. There is no contractual relationship, and I'm not a lawyer but I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to establish the act of placing a script on a public-facing web server as constituting implied consent for the public to copy the code, because that's the only way it can possibly work.
In other words, these guys don't have a leg to stand on. There is not and can never be (at least not without radically revamping the entire infrastructure of the World Wide Web) such a thing as closed-source JavaScript that one is not permitted to copy freely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: MITM attacks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i looked at the words, but i didn't inhale.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CFAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But every browser page they inject their code into is "using the said code". Where do they ask the browser user to accept/purchase a license before displaying the page?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CFAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just because criminals can claim "copyright", doesn't make copyright bad.
It's not an extreme position, it's a desire to resolve a caustic, acidic environment that is corrosive to all components of the system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whose copyright anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
The Statute of Anne was created to fix the chaos of the power vacuum that resulted from the dissolution of the Stationers' system. When the article states that "Authors by themselves might have no inherent desire to control copying, but publishers do," they're throwing history out the window. Back before the Internet, when publishing was synonymous with the printing press, which required not only a press (an expensive piece of high technology) but also a good deal of (also expensive) skilled labor to typeset and print the book, publishing one's work was well beyond the means of most authors. But once the Stationers' authority, which regulated the publishing system, was dissolved, publishers found themselves able to publish and sell whatever they wanted to--they were the ones who had the technology and the technical expertise to use it--without the authors having any say in it. Frequently something would get published without the author's permission and also without paying any royalties to the author, simply because they could.
The Statute of Anne was created explicitly to put an end to the publishers' practice of leveraging their power and expensive technology to abuse authors, by giving the authors a legal right of control over the publishers' use of their works. It was fundamentally a good thing.
The DMCA, by contrast, was created explicitly to enable publishers to leverage their power and expensive technology to abuse everyone through DRM and the DMCA takedown system. It is an abomination that flies in the face of not only proper copyright, but of our most sacred legal traditions, such as the presumption of inncence, and it needs to be done away with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
Look at the attempts that the publishers made to get copyright before coming up with the idea of assigning it to authors to get copyright accepted. Copyright has always bee about industrial regulation in industries that used batch processes to produce copies, and where one or both publishers would be left with unsold copies if two or more tried to sell the same title in the same market.
Also note that for about the first 300 years of printing, authors did not have copyrights, but could control whether or not to have a manuscript published. So long as the publisher was guaranteed a monopoly, manuscripts telling tales that would appeal to a lot of people were valuable commodities, giving them something to print, and the purchased them from authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What if
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Inducement to commit Copyright Infringement
(1) AirTel is modifying someone else's page in transit to you so that it will load the JavaScript into your browser, and
(2) AirTel's JavaScript code is copyrighted, and
(3) viewing it is a copyright infringement
Then didn't AirTel just induce you to commit said copyright infringement?
Shouldn't AirTel be suing themselves for 'enabling and facilitating' copyright infringement?
Isn't merely linking to infringing content an infringement? Thus AirTel is also guilty of inserting an infringing link into someone else's web page in transit to your browser -- and thus AirTel is doubly guilty of copyright infringement!
Wow, AirTel really sounds like a huge copyright infringer -- er, I mean thief -- who is stealing their own JavaScript code by making your browser load it! Each thieving download into someone's browser depletes the supply of originals of that JavaScript, so I can see why AirTel would be upset.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Inducement to commit Copyright Infringement
Of course, as we have learned, hosting copyright infringing content is perfectly okay. The source of the infringement is never sought out. Rather the real crime is in linking to infringing material, or innocently indexing the web pages that contain the infringing material. Or thinking about infringement (as per the article).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
* even if they are not your own pages.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
You seem to be making the mistake of believing that publishing began with the printing press or was only possible with one. This is far from the truth. Publishing and manual copying have going on for probably as long as there has been written language. Yet, before the advent of the printing press, large scale publishing was an expensive process, thus limiting it to the wealthy. The wealthy were, generally, also the ruling class. Thus the ruling class could control, or censor, what was published on larger scales and dictate "the truth". And there were no copyright laws to "protect the poor, starving writers". The idea that people could not make their own copies of other people's words would have been deemed ridiculous, for the copyright kool-aid had yet to be invented.
Then came the printing press, enabling large scale publishing for the less wealthy. Now the ruling class had a problem with their natural monopoly on large scale publishing evaporating, which threatened their power to dictate their own version of the truth. So, with the loss of their natural monopoly they created a legal one of their own making, calling it copyright. Being politically astute and to distract the commoners from their true motives, they also began cynically positioning it as being about "protecting the creators". Something they had never been worried about before. Thus was created the copyright kool-aid.
Copyright is a very recent idea in human history. And it was originated to enable censorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Couldn't it also be argued that since the JavaScript code had nothing to do with the proper functioning of the web page and was secretly sent to the user's browser without their knowledge or consent, it was an unauthorized access of their system?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CFAA
Re-read the article a little more closely and I think you'll see why that would never work. In particular, look closely at the last image. ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A few years ago, I started to see really annoying JavaScript ads on web sites that would fade out the page and replace it with an ad that you couldn't skip for 5-10 seconds. It was using code from a company called AdBright and they were the first set of IP addresses I ever added to the Hosts file.
Now I use the MVP Hosts file, with a few of my own IPs added in and I never see most of this crap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Which, I would like to point out, is somewhat different from being a lawyer.
"Because of the way JavaScript and web browsers work, when a script is put on a webpage, the source is sent to the end-user automatically."
That applies to just about everything on the web. If you're trying to argue that once something is put on the web, copyright no longer applies, I think you might find that the courts have a little disagreement with you there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The use is transformative - the original purpose is to insert unwanted code into people's pages; the purpose of the copy is to show what is being done to people's machines. The nature of the copyrighted work is JavaScript code, which is functional rather than creative. Showing the entire code is necessary to show what the code is doing (and the parts of the code that actually inject this script into people's pages are not shown.) And the only negative impact on the market for the original is from people's objections to what they are doing, which is not a valid concern as far as copyright law is concerned. For crying out loud, they're blasting this code to people who don't even want it... it's not like anyone who wanted a copy to use the code without paying for it would have trouble getting it.
And it's illegal to threaten criminal charges to get a favorable result in a civil matter. You can go to the police, or you can not go to the police. You can't say you'll go to the police unless you do what we say (unless it's something where the action would mean there was never a crime, like covering an accidentally bounced check or something.) That's called "blackmail" or "extortion".
Of course, that's all from US law. Maybe the guy needs to move, quick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
To give an example of the scope involved, Gutenberg produced over 200 Bibles over the course of about 5 years. Before the printing press, it could take a team of scribes months or even years to copy a single Bible. He managed to reduce the work of centuries into half a decade, and eliminate transcription errors in the process!
No, the printing press was something truly new and attempting to compare it to earlier methods of copying the written word, either qualitatively or quantitatively, is fallacious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Inducement to commit Copyright Infringement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
Umm, no. Your twisting of history is astounding. To publish means to make generally known or to disseminate to the public. It does not even have to be in a large number of copies. Plenty of works were published before the invention of the printing press.
"large-scale copying of works of non-trivial size wasn't an expensive process thus limited to the wealthy; it simply did not exist."
By the standards of the time, it most certainly did. Scale is relative.
"Before the printing press, it could take a team of scribes months or even years to copy a single Bible."
That's what made it so expensive that only the wealthy could afford to finance it.
"No, the printing press was something truly new..."
Nice straw man there. No one said it wasn't.
"... attempting to compare it to earlier methods of copying the written word, either qualitatively or quantitatively, is fallacious."
Trying to pretend that nothing was published before the invention of the printing press is truly fallacious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This capability is why everyone clams up around Stingrays
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Abolish Copyright
It took Gutenberg about 5 years to set and print his first issue of the bible, with printing a printer prints the desired number of the copies on each side of a sheet, which folds to form a section, before moving onto the next side. It is unlikely that he had the whole Bible set in type at the same time. Also, a lot of that time was debugging the printing process he had invented.
Copying words, eve keeping to a formal book-hand, does not take that long for a work the size of the Bible. What did consume time was making it beautiful by adding the illuminations. The hot bed of copy production prior to the printing press was the universities, as student copied, the reference books that they would need in latter life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This capability is why everyone clams up around Stingrays
But I'm sure the things also come bundled with a basic software inject capability once it is accepted as a trusted source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What good has Copyright done in 2015? 2014?
Anything?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What good has Copyright done in 2015? 2014?
Wait, you said 'good', never mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I find it 'curious' that they involve several countries. That is done for strategic reasons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techno/Legal Procedural Horror
And to start a new 21st Century Fiction genre.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Abolish Copyright
That ought to ensure they only suit of threathen real cases.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
here we go again...
If its not an Israely company, then its a holywood person with Israely nationality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just because criminals can claim "copyright", doesn't make copyright bad.
Finally, some progress! Now, stop trying to obfuscate your identity with random dictionary words, and try to participate in the actual conversation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Same principle is often argued here in support of torrents
Well, that's a good reason for me to do the same to copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's indeed sick
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's like a train wreck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boycott Israel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright infringement
If presenting a line of code in order to technically demonstrate a man in the middle attack in progress is criminal copyright infringement, how hard would a fair legal process throw the book at someone modifying ALL copyrighted material it consumes, without permission, for profit?
Talk about being hoisted by your own petard.
The correct response is to browse to your own site on Airtel, and ask them just what in the living fuck they think they're doing with your proprietary designs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, stores like this, plus personally falling victim to iframe malvertising watering hole attacks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]