lol, copying isn’t theft. You already had to download a copy just to view it. That’s how websites work.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
If you copy something you are not entitled to because of copyright, it's copyright infringement.
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
Not the same thing, and calling it theft is purely a propaganda term invented by the media industry.
It should also be noted that copyright laws usually have all sorts of exceptions for fair use such as satire, education, etc. Typically, keeping and even using a copy without permission is legally allowed under certain circumstances.
Just a word of caution. Even if you have a valid fair use claim they have to be adjudicated and the legal costs can get pricey. Worse if you’re found liable.
Check out Lawful Masses on YouTube for plenty of examples of copyright trolls using this as a bludgeon.
It's just a fear tactic. If enough people self represented themselves individually the companies would die. You can't draw blood from a stone... which the average consumer is basically close to. The recovery rate vs the lawsuit fees would destroy the entire legal system if people stood their ground.
Canada decided to have none of that. Downloading without keeping a copy (streaming) was basically thrown out as copyright infringement, the whole lost income idea was generally laughed at, and the final result was a maximum judgement of $500 for all non-commercial copyright infringement prior to the suit. Which basically would pay for about one hour of the plaintiff lawyer's fees. We don't get a lot of copyright suits like that in Canada any more.
•
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
There used to be an anti-piracy lobby group in Australia literally called "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft". I always had an issue with their name since they were really against copyright infringement, not "copyright theft" which is just a nonsense term like you said. It's been ruled several times by courts both in Australia and in the USA that it can't be called "theft" (e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/2013/12/02/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial/).
I like to think of it as something similar to watching a football match from the other side of the fence. People who paid the ticket, are loyal fans. People who didn’t pay, but still want to see the match, probably aren’t even part of the target audience. Some of them might be, but that’s a small number.
So, when the football company says that they’ve lost the sales of x number of tickets, they are actually saying that if those people had enough money and if they cared enough, they might have paid this amount of money.
"Tools" -> "Page info" -> "Media" menu on Firefox - you can even see and save the images that the browser already downloaded.
Right, so I suppose George Lucas was stealing from all the movies that inspired his work when he made Star Wars. Or when Mel Brooks made Space Balls, as a more blatant example
Mel Brooks’s works are protected under the Fair Use provisions for satire under the DMCA. Lucas never copied anything directly, but, if pressed, much of his work is “heavily inspired” by works in the public domain and/or could be argued to be “derivative works”, also covered by Fair Use provisions in the DMCA, although any claim of copyright violation would be pretty difficult to make in the first place.
And the same can be said about generative AI
If it's not redistributed copyrighted material, it's not theft
And the same can be said about generative AI
not in any legally reasonable way, and certainly not by anyone who understands how AI (or, really, LLM models) work or what art is.
If it’s not redistributed copyrighted material, it’s not theft
but that's exactly what OpenAI did-- they used distributed, copyrighted works, used them as training data, and spit out result, some of which even contained word-for-word repetitions of the author's source material.
AI, unlike a human, cannot create unique works of art. it can old produce an algorithmically-derived malange of its source-data recomposited in novel forms, but nothing resembling the truly unique creative process of a living human. Sadly, too many people simply lack the ability to comprehend the difference.
it can old produce an algorithmically-derived malange of its source-data recomposited in novel forms
Right, it produces derivative data. Not copyrighted material.
By itself without any safeguards, it absolutely could output copyrighted data, (albeit probably not perfectly but for copyright purposes that's irrelevant as long as it serves as a substitute). And any algorithms that do do that should be punished, but OpenAI's models can't do that.
Hammers aren't bad because they can be used for bludgeoning, and if we have a hammer that somehow detects that it's being used for murder and then evaporates, calling it bad is even more ridiculous.
It is awesome but some websites seem to detect when Dev Tools get brought up, can you explain this?
https://tube.tchncs.de/w/cJ18YQATnJK3dnc5xuBRM7 (details in desc)
I know a large js obferscator has auto detection code, try loading dev tools in first then loading the site on the tab so it doesn't detect the sudden viewport change
I did consider this and accounted for it, that's part of the details in desc you should have read
A fellow Ultron user in the wild, #1 hacker and cyber-thief browser on the web. How's your Adobe Reader?
Mobile convergence has tried to hard to kill this, but we're not having it. Cut, copy, paste, save 4 lyfe!
you focus on that popup and ignore all the crank shit that is on this page
yes a piece of granite (?) with $60 pricetag put on my amplifier COMPLETELY changes how my vinyls sound like
statements dreamed of by the utterly deranged
Right click?? Why did we ever need a second or third or seventeenth button anyway?
They have played us for absolute fools
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/bR1sfqhJMdE?si=L6OJ1uG7-I1GEzUv
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
A piece of granite placed on the turntable would change how his records sound, but not necessarily in a good way.
Depending on the artist of course.
You know, I considered that pun, but decided it was too obvious - I shouldn't have taken it for granite.
All this does is infuriate actual users trying to use your site. Content thieves will just download it via a script or curl and you won't be able to do anything about it.
Also in some browsers (I know Gecko-based ones at least), you can override JavaScript by holding shift while you right-click.
•
I always found these anti-right-click scripts funny since they usually don't block Ctrl+S to save the page, Ctrl+U to view source, or Ctrl+P to print (or these days, F12 to open the browser dev tools)
My personal favorite is Ctrl+Shift+C which brings up Dev tools in selection mode, so you can click on the picture or whatever and be taken straight to its HTML code.
But then you find that website used JavaScript to calculate URLs to the actual website content for which wget is no match.
Or it's just otherwise JavaScript-dependent website. Wget can't parse that.
I can take a screenshot and then have it automatically OCR the text. Hell, I can take a picture with my phone of my chicken scratch handwriting and have it OCR.
And as someone who remembers buying OCR software from OfficeMax for $40 that barely worked, that's pretty amazing.
•
What are you using to OCR screenshots? I have lots of old screenshots and I'd love to OCR them and find notable things I worked on and took a screenshot of.
I have an iPhone and it just sorta does it automatically. If it thinks there's text it will put yellow corners around it and let me copy it to my clipboard. On my Mac I can just start selecting text and it will figure it out.
There is a 100% chance this warning correlates with the actual content on this site being hot garbage
there are both categories.
Some things are marginally better and incredibly expensive.
Other things, such as garden hose power snakes and these "audiophile crystals" are just pure scam.
I'd be all up for some diminishing returns but the price premium is nowhere close to adequate. For the price of an overbuilt headphone amp you can buy a soldering iron and parts for three amps that are four times as overbuilt. And include a metrology-grade DAC in all of them.
And, yes, my headphone cable is oxygen-free copper. I simply chose the cheapest suitable cable I could find at Thomann, the stuff is so cheap they're throwing it in there for diminishing returns in sales.
Considering they think putting rocks on top of your playing equipment changes the sound, their work has negative value.
Technically, a weight on top of AV equipment's cases will change the resonant properties of the chassis but that does not produce audible effects unless it's on the speaker cone. The author considers this and dismisses the possibility because “rocks not heavy enough”.
Also, a sufficiently large rock will affect the performance of any Hi-Fi equipment.
a sufficiently large rock will affect the performance of any Hi-Fi equipment.
I think you followed the instructions perfectly.
You missed the part where if you put the rock in your ear, it will affect how it sounds.
Sometimes I think the whole industry of audiophile is just a bunch of baloney. Reminds of chifi IEM the KZ ZEX pro or something where people were praising for the improve sound and more drivers. Turns out only 1 driver is used and the rest are just there to justify increase in the price. It being no different than their cheaper version.
Audiophiles are 100% targeted with tons of nonsense products, mainly because sound is such a subjective thing beyond a certain level. That's not to say all hifi products are placebo-driven, just that the industry is rife with them.
That's not untrue though... Putting rocks on your sound system could make the rocks vibrate against it and sound like utter shit.
Well, my cheap Bluetooth speaker vibrates terribly and weighing it down helps. This will not help devices which already have vibration-preventing features, such as rubber feet or acoustics-aware housing design. And only some rocks will wobble depending on the base shape and point of mass.
I planned on getting my dad a sound bar for his TV on his birthday because the TV he uses, the plastic grill over the speaker vibrates something fierce and it sounds like absolute garbage any time something with any amount of bass plays. But maybe I can just glue some rocks to it 🤔
When I hear "glue rocks to it", I feel the urge to post the steering wheel picture. Because that one lives in my head rent free.
It's only tangentially relevant, but still.
He could afford hundreds of dollars' worth of placebo just for this single article. Either there's an undisclosed sponsorship deal, or he has enough money to fuel all his means of self-delusion hobbies.
Someone already plagiarized from them, so clearly it must be
In my whole life I never bought digital audio or video content on vinyl, VHS, CD, DVD, Blueray. Never ever. It sounds as weird to me like paying for air to breath.
But one day I visited a live concert of a small band which I loved as a teenager. After the show I met with their drummer, gave him €200 cash and said "You know, when I was young you were cool about kids copying your music without paying. You told us if we like you music we can enjoy it. And if we can afford it, we can pay you. Back then I couldn't. Today I can."
And so I paid them five times as much as I saved back then by copying their music.
You are a very good person.
This is utterly irrelevant to people copying multi-million sales dickshits like Metallica.
Don't get scammed with audiophile rocks. I've done my research and found out that audiophile rock salt does the exact same thing and it is MUCH cheaper! Feel free to copy this and spread the word!
..... Jesus fucking christ. My research is invalid. I'm going to have to start all over again. 🤬
The science behind it is that it sounds crunchy because the rock salt draws out the moisture from the music. You will have to replace the salt on a regular basis though - depending on how much music you listen to.
Yeah that's true but still, I listen to a lot of really wet and moist music and even then. For the price of one good quality audiophile rock I can have a lifetime supply of rock salt for both audio and seasoning purposes.
No no, I'm not like that, I promise. I understand your skepticism. It saddens me that this is where we're at today but I understand.
You're doing it wrong. You need to match the type and size of the rock to your headphone impedance, this is common knowledge man
I would need a boulder yo. My headphones have an impedence of 170,000 ohms. This will have to do.
Urgh god damn it. Yeah I just called my contractor, he's gonna come bust a hole in my ceiling on Tuesday morning. Salt boulder will be dropped in by Friday.
Sorry I can't sell any at all. Not even a gram. I have exactly enough for myself, nothing to spare.
Urgh I know but what's the point in carrying more. I can't compete with Big Rock Salt. Ever since they legalized it I barely get any customers.
Probably the source of their problem:
Copyright Infringement – Outing – dasklang.com, isecope.com, headgamesonline.com and technocratsblog.com
As I See It, News, comments & Information
Apr 16, 2019
Recently I have discovered my review work (1) and show reports taken and reproduced without my permission by four websites, one of whom took the material down when asked – they should not have reproduced it in the first place. When approached they said ‘sure that is how the net works, I am helping you by doing this’. No you are not, you are only helping yourself dasklang.com (2), creating traffic to your site off the back of my work not your own. How would you like it if I reproduced the design of your products ? Then told you my doing so was helping you. You wouldn’t.
I was going to let this go, but why should I? I have struggled personally to try and put some content on my site, battled reviwers burn out and other issues. Content that in many cases I have paid for out of my pocket to write about, not items loaned by manufacturers or distributors, but products I had bought, sometimes simply to write about them. However even if I had not parted with my money, my time and effort is worth something surely? Worthy of respect that I would at the very least be offered a chance to give my permission as to how my work is used, and where. None of these websites asked, they took what wasn’t theirs to use, to put content on their sites.
The websites that still have my material up without permission are isecope.com, headgames online and technocratsblog.com, all three I suspect are linked.
As they are watching this site maybe after being named and shamed they will remove the material. I doubt it, I guess I will have to go after them with DMCA’s and report to their web-hosts.
@WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world did knowingly an intentionally expose a minor to pornography. Mandatory Sex offender registration. /s
Mildly infuriating cause those charges did happen. Charge the trafficked minor with a felony to target the traffickers. (My memory might be faulty on the event)
Isn't it wild that kids can be both perpetrators and victims of the same crime? Like if a teen takes sexually explicit video of themselves and sends it to someone, they can be arrested, tried, and convicted or producing and disseminating child pornography.
It's not wild. Christian Fascists have always taken the stance: "the slaves will never rebel, and if they do we hit them with a big hammer".
I don't think that it's christian nationalism in this case. The state definitely has a strong, compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children (and hopefully of adults as well). I think that it's more a case that it's really hard to figure out how to deal with material that is 99% exploitative, and 1% made willingly by kids, without them being coerced by adults.
Because--and here's where it gets really uncomfortable for most people--kids are also sexual. They may be more or less aware and interested in sex, and may not understand the mechanics, but that shit is baked into your biology. Gay kids know they're gay at a very young age, and I knew I was straight--although I had no idea what 'straight' and 'gay' even meant by the time I was 7 (!!!). And this was well before the internet.
1% made willingly by kids, without them being coerced by adults
the stickiest part of the wicket here is that if you carve out an exception for kids taking pictures of themselves, even if you make it still illegal but make the consequences less about punishment, millions of hideous fuckers will immediately begin probing for a way to manipulate kids into doing it themselves in a manner that doesn't technically break the law.
It's more like "we'll continuously hit them with a big hammer to prevent any potential rebellion"
It's just an alert() function thrown at you. Whatever it says, it is not enforceable as it is not a contract. But It's annoying
It's a bootstrap modal, not an alert. In Firefox you can just hold shift when right clicking to bypass the js events and show the menu anyway.
It was/is extremely easy to bypass. All you have to do is disable Javascript, or what 13-year-old me used to back in the day was spam the right-click button and the menu would pop up before the script could stop you.
I was about to give some empathy for the dude but their articles are trash and they would be lucky if we stole them.
Zero empathy. There are tons of reasons to right click that have nothing to do with copying, plus he's a complete moron to think that there's any way to prevent someone from saving something that's already downloaded on their computer.
In Firefox, you can bypass most of this bullshit by holding down shift. There are some other tricks the website uses, but disabling Javascript (
in uBlock) bypasses all of the weird restrictions this site tries to throw at you.
I think this has to do with this article:
Recently I have discovered my review work (1) and show reports taken and reproduced without my permission by four websites, one of whom took the material down when asked – they should not have reproduced it in the first place. When approached they said ‘sure that is how the net works, I am helping you by doing this’. No you are not, you are only helping yourself dasklang.com (2), creating traffic to your site off the back of my work not your own. How would you like it if I reproduced the design of your products ? Then told you my doing so was helping you. You wouldn’t.
I was going to let this go, but why should I? I have struggled personally to try and put some content on my site, battled reviwers burn out and other issues. Content that in many cases I have paid for out of my pocket to write about, not items loaned by manufacturers or distributors, but products I had bought, sometimes simply to write about them. However even if I had not parted with my money, my time and effort is worth something surely? Worthy of respect that I would at the very least be offered a chance to give my permission as to how my work is used, and where. None of these websites asked, they took what wasn’t theirs to use, to put content on their sites.
The websites that still have my material up without permission are isecope.com, headgames online and technocratsblog.com, all three I suspect are linked.
As they are watching this site maybe after being named and shamed they will remove the material. I doubt it, I guess I will have to go after them with DMCA’s and report to their web-hosts.
I have no idea why someone would steal from a website that reviews audio "setups" like these. The website doesn't even have working HTTPS. I'm guessing it's all just automated ad fraud/SEO hacking websites copying random stuff, and the author treating that as a serious copyright offence.
It looks like this weird website also stole the author's blog post, probably to get better ranking on Google. I can't find a way to reach the stolen review from the front page, so it's probably a Google SEO hack. That website is full of them as well. I would probably be pissed off about these audiophile scammers copying my stuff for cheap SEO hacking as well, but a right clicking script isn't going to change any of this, as the scrapers are probably running modified browser engines rather than doing all of this work manually.
Meanwhile, their robots.txt doesn't disallow GPTBot or Google Bard. So apparently they're okay with content being stolen by for-profit companies.
you think either of those companies pays attention to robots.txt? its not legally binding or anythjng
They generally do, because very few people bother to block them anyway. Complying with robots.txt is a good way to show in court that you did put effort into complying with the usual standards, without it ever impacting the useful information you're scraping.
At the executive level, no I don't think they care or pay attention, but considering both have said "here's how to block our crawler," I do hope that that some mistreated developer did actually program a check in to the crawler. I still think it's worth doing, even though I don't fully trust them.
I feel sorry for the guy now. He's in over his head and trying to defend himself ineffectively. And now a bunch of lemmings are mocking him too, which I get, but it's still fucked up. Humans suck.
i don't feel bad dunking on this guys site. doing this is a dick move for accessibility reasons
Yeah, based on his robots.txt it seems to be a Wordpress site, so he's probably just installed an ineffective plugin to prevent copying. At least he can take solace in the fact that most of us probably aren't any more relevant than he is.
I was going to copy content from the page using Absolute Enable Right Click & Copy in Firefox, but then I realized the content isn't worth copying.
So yes, there are add-ons to easily extract text and bypass this. The text is sent to your computer. It's your computer. You can copy the content.
Don't even need an addon, just hit F12 to open dev tools and use the network tab to get images/videos, and inspector tab for text.
It's done by overriding the document.onrightclick and the selection start something function in the browser. Reset it and you're done.
I know this because of a manufacturers website that does this. So incredibly annoying when the only reason anybody would want to copy from their webbo is for reference of their own products. In my case the product numbers to search for where to buy it.
I bet in ublock origin you can just click the "block JavaScript" button and refresh the page. That works for a lot of things like this.
looks like its just setting some events, these two lines should clear the anti-select and the anti-right click respectively if pasted into the debug console:
document.body.onselectstart = undefined
document.oncontextmenu = undefined
Firefox has an add-on called "Allow Right-Click" that lets you easily toggle blocking right-click scripts. Some sites offer a useful context menu, like Google Drive, so you don't necessarily want to always be blocking them. Hence the toggle.
•
you reminded me of a site that was "down for maintenance" (they were just spamming an alert) after using the block multiple alerts button in firefox, it works fine
Can someone in a country that doesn't give a crap about his country's copyright laws wget that whole site for me?