Sorry but you're just wrong. I view a website on MY computer and can change it any way I want on MY computer. And that's really what this is about. I control my computer not the content creator.

Not quite. The mere fact that the website is viewed from your computer does not cancel the copyright holder's rights.

You can certainly make a case for fair use, but the point is the consumer is not free to do whatever they want.

Are you saying I'm not entitled to do whatever I want on MY computer? As long as it stays on my computer (not redistributed) I can alter it anyway I like.

Not necessarily. If you don't redistribute it would likely fall under fair use, but no, just because it's on your computer doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.

NOTE: This isn't my opinion of how things *SHOULD* be, just a statement of how they *ARE* under US Copyright Law.

You say:

"Copyright exists to protect the owner of the content, not the consumer. It reserves in the holder the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform and display the work, and to license these exclusive rights to others as the holder sees fit. Just because the end user knows the changes are being made doesn't mean they are authorized to do so."

Better outlaw scissors, tape, and highlighters then. I can do terrible things to printed content with those, and all without the consent of the copyright holder.

Look - as I mentioned above, those probably fall under fair use. There are various aspects to look at when determining fair use: the effect on the market, certain explicit and implied "fair uses" (like education, critique/commentary, parody, etc), whether the use is commercial or not.

Is this commercial use? Maybe, considering Google is/may be making money through it's partnership with Amazon, or for advertising on Google Maps.
Is what's happening actually a copy or redistribution? Again, an unanswered question. The fact that the software is installed on your machine might mean it's less likely to be considered a copy....

The problem I'm trying to point out is that we are framing the problem wrong. Any discussion on whether this is infringing should focus on 1) the rights of the copyright holder and 2) if unauthorized, whether the use is a valid exception.

So if I use a tool to markup a book, that's fair use. If I use a tool to mark up a web page, that's not fair use?

The term fair use has no meaning if the two differ.

AutoLink does NOT change the server content. Additionally:

1) It does not come by default - I have to hunt it down and install it
2) It does nothing by default - I have to press the "AutoLink" button to have to take action
3) The changes it makes are exactly like those I'd make with a highlighter - they happen only on a local copy, and they are clearly marked as different from the page itself

If AutoLink is bad, then highlighters are as well

No, marking up a book in and of itself is not fair use - how you use it subsequently is also considered. For example, I can't mark up the book in a way to alter the content and then resell it commercially. If it's just sitting on your bookshelf, no one will care.

How does it change things, if at all, if this is the default behavior in a new Google Browser?

And to your third point, they are NOT clearly marked as different from the page itself - the only indication is a different icon when I hover over it. What if I use the keyboard to select? I won't see that icon and won't know it's a Google link as opposed to a publisher link.

The links are clearly different as soon as I push the cursor over them. They don't appear until I physically press a button to make them appear. In much the same way that changes to a book don't happen until I use a highlighter.

If your version of fair use holds, then most college students should be locked up. Why? They markup books and then sell them to students taking the class later on. The new users of the book get a marked up version that modifies the intent of the copyright holder.

Are those students evil? Do we need to ban highligters?

Not to mention that I'm not selling the AutoLink modified content to anyone. I'm viewing it locally and moving along.

Another thing - I can easily write a script that does the same kind of thing (as Mark Pilgrim has demonstrated). If you want AutoLink style things banned, you are going to have to get DRM aware browsers. Somehow, I doubt you really want to go there.

The highlighter analogy is flawed. Adding links changes the actual substance of the content, which highlighting simply provides emphasis. Also consider that Google already offers (and has for awhile) a feature for highlighting search terms; no one is taking issue with that.

What they are doing is more analogous to changing the footnotes at the bottom of a page. The author intended to point to one resource for clarification, but you're pointing to another. If you're reselling, it's probably infringing. It doesn't mean they're going to go after you if it's an individual basis - it's probably cost prohibitive.

Now imagine this was a service that one textbook company offered - Westlaw, for free, would highlight your books, but in the process would change all links to Lexis Nexis to their own service. Would you have a problem with that?

In many ways, that's sort of what's happening here.

"Not to mention that I'm not selling the AutoLink modified content to anyone. I'm viewing it locally and moving along."

It's important to remember Google's role in this. Google is a corporate entity and is, through its Amazon partnership among other things, profiting from this feature. Yes, you are not selling the modified content, but it might be construed that Google IS. If the courts determine the former, it's probably fair use; if the latter, it's unlikely to be considered fair use.

But I think fundamentally, you're missing my point. Fair use exists as an exception to the copyright holder's rights. I think I would be pretty comfortable making the argument both ways, but merely saying "it's on my computer so I can do whatever I want" isn't fair use. If it were, I could give you a copy of all my music without being sued by the RIAA :)

"The links are clearly different as soon as I push the cursor over them. They don't appear until I physically press a button to make them appear. In much the same way that changes to a book don't happen until I use a highlighter. "

It is possible to select and click a link without using the mouse, in which case the icon doesn't appear.

Martin Schwimmer points to a podcast hosted by Denise Powell where he, Cory Doctorow, and Robert...

Looking back over some of my previous posts, I realized I came across as a bit of a protectionist. ...