1. Can it be considered "modified enough" to be considered derivative if it's the original file, plus some Javascript to provide a pop-up notification?
2. These MITM alerts are typically customer-beneficial and customer-relationship-oriented; the purpose is to alert that the user is getting close to a bandwidth cap. Similarly, there's current talk of somehow making ISPs or service providers deliver EAS alerts. Comcast already has to do this for EAS alerts on its television service. Does Comcast violate copyright when it interrupts a television program to show a federally required EAS alert?
3. Captive portals are a well-established instance where a page requested is not what's delivered. No one is accusing them of copyright infringement.
The fact that you can easily describe what their modifications do as a new feature (w notification) that wasn't part of the original work is stro9ng evidence that their modifications were transforative.
> These MITM alerts are typically customer-beneficial and customer-relationship-oriented;
That doesn't give them the right to make a derivative work based on my webpage. I'm not their customer!
> the purpose is to alert that the user is getting close to a bandwidth cap
So what? Communicating with their customers doesn't require violating the copyrights of many 3rd parties. 3rd parties shouldn't even be involved.
Instead of vandalizing a lot of webpages, they could:
* Simply send only their own page instead of appending of trying to mix it into other people's copyright protected works. This is how captive portals worked ever since they were invented.
* Instead of trying to notify their customers in-band with the service they provide, send any necessary warnings to the phone number (or other contract information) listed on the customer's account. This is what many businesses did in the past, and many still do.
* (re: bandwidth limits) They could stop trying to impose artificial scarcity and use a business model with more honest pricing.
* They could add a small message display and alert light (and buzzer?) to the modem/router.
> 1. Can it be considered "modified enough" to be considered derivative if it's the original file, plus some Javascript to provide a pop-up notification?
They're altering the functionality of it, fairly substantially imo. I would argue that copyright should protect your IP from being subverted to serve additional, annoying pop-ups.
> Does Comcast violate copyright when it interrupts a television program to show a federally required EAS alert?
In that case Comcast is not altering the contents of the work, it is replacing the content with other content. I don't think that's a violation of copyright at all.
> 3. Captive portals are a well-established instance where a page requested is not what's delivered. No one is accusing them of copyright infringement.
Again, they are not modifying the returned content, they are refusing to display the requested content and returning alternative content.
1. Can it be considered "modified enough" to be considered derivative if it's the original file, plus some Javascript to provide a pop-up notification?
2. These MITM alerts are typically customer-beneficial and customer-relationship-oriented; the purpose is to alert that the user is getting close to a bandwidth cap. Similarly, there's current talk of somehow making ISPs or service providers deliver EAS alerts. Comcast already has to do this for EAS alerts on its television service. Does Comcast violate copyright when it interrupts a television program to show a federally required EAS alert?
3. Captive portals are a well-established instance where a page requested is not what's delivered. No one is accusing them of copyright infringement.