[metageek]

Isn't JS injection a copyright violation, since it creates a derived work? Or has that idea been shot down before?

[jerf]

This remains an untested field of copyright law, as far as I know. I've been waiting for literally over a decade for some test case on this matter to come up, and it never does. Perhaps by 2023.

[jmcqk6]

Isn't this just a matter of

1) building a webpage where you own the copright

2) Have someone in one of the cities where this is happening browse to your page.

3) Copyright violated, and you get to be the test case!

[jacques_chester]

Courts will generally refuse to take on manufactured cases. Their job is resolve real disputes.

A lower court would probably just throw the case out.

And if it didn't, the higher courts, which would set a widely binding precedent, would exercise their discretion simply not to hear the case. Yes: they get to pick and choose what appeals to hear.

[andrewflnr]

It doesn't have to be manufactured, someone just has to notice it already happening.

[ihsw]

Good luck fighting against a team of lawyers with virtually unlimited budget. If you're lucky you might get a cash settlement but they'll still be screwing everybody else with impunity.

[shardling]

The idea would be that websites would take action, not end users. (Otherwise, how would it be a copyright vio?) I think we can assume that if it was infringement, Google would have an interest and the pockets to go to battle.

IANAL, but I can't really see how it would be infringement, though.