This isn't qualitatively different than readability or numerous other extensions. The only difference is he is doing it server side.

> The only difference is he is doing it server side

Ah, but from a legal perspective, this makes all the difference. It is, I'm sorry to say, copyright infringement and goes beyond what fair use permits.

Yes I understand that, I said it isn't qualitatively different. If the web page somehow distributed javascript that would do the same thing client side, the website would appear exactly the same, yet would be perfectly legal.

The comment I was replying to wasn't arguing that it was illegal, but actually wrong and "lacking respect". I was just pointing out that he should have the same opinion towards things like readability.

Also I think readability did do it server side, and so do other things like RSS readers.

Without taking a position on Readability, there's more to the calculation than client side vs. server side. For more see my post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8455648

You're right, but I wonder where the line is drawn with things like online RSS readers. They're basically doing the same thing, but just behind a username/password.

>line is drawn with things like online RSS readers

For starters, I'd look at the Supreme Court's opinion in Grokster. Here it is in HN-suitable pseudocode. :)

  IF $distributing_product_used_by_others_to_infringe == FALSE THEN
    FIND_NO_LIABILITY ( "None found" )
  ELSEIF $distributing_with_object_of_promoting_infringement == TRUE THEN
    FIND_LIABILITY ( "You're inducing infringement ")
  ELSE
    IF $actual_knowledge_of_infringements == TRUE and $failed_to_block == TRUE THEN
      FIND_LIABILITY ( "You're a contributory infringer ")
    ELSE
      IF $capable_of_substantial_noninfringing_uses == TRUE THEN
        FIND_NO_LIABILITY ( "None found" )
      ELSE
        FIND_LIABILITY ( "You're a contributory infringer ")
      END
    END
  END

How this applies to online RSS readers is left as an exercise for the reader...

UPDATE: A copyright lawyer friend points out via email that I neglected to include vicarious liability. I'll leave the above pseudocode as-is and note vicarious liability here as a bugfix/todo.