adblock block?

[IceDogg]

but by the letter of the law, any modification of the original content is an unauthorized version and therefore a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Nobody seems to understand THAT.

The basis for the court's ruling was the Communications Decency Act, which contains a "safe harbor" provision in Section 230. The law provides protection for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, and harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Source

I think covers it. Bold mine.

[fanboy]

..any modification of the original content is an unauthorized version and therefore a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Even if this was true, I live in a country where this law doesn't affect me.

[jamieplucinski]

Well considering the site is in Israel I doubt much could be done by the operator either way even if he did have a valid legal standpoint. But as it stands this is just another case of someone picking up a few lines of legal jargon and running with it taking it out of context and showing how little they actually understand the system.