• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    lol, copying isn’t theft. You already had to download a copy just to view it. That’s how websites work.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        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/).

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      “Tools” -> “Page info” -> “Media” menu on Firefox - you can even see and save the images that the browser already downloaded.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s different when you earn profit from another person’s work.

        • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          7 months ago

          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

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            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.

            • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              And the same can be said about generative AI

              If it’s not redistributed copyrighted material, it’s not theft

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                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.

                • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      To an extent yes but it’s essentially just extreme deminishing returns

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • rab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’ve never even heard of audiophile crystals, I didn’t realize that was a direct reference lol

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

  • Daxtron2@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    7 months ago

    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)

    • jayandp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Faresh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        It also is a bit annoying that that is the keybinding, because whenever I have to copy something from the browser to the terminal, I must remind myself not to do Ctrl-shift-c as I would in the terminal.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

    • XTL@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Or reader mode or page info or… well, anything. All it does is annoy the user when tripped.

      • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • Olivia@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          @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)

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • Olivia@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              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”.

              • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

              • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                It’s more like “we’ll continuously hit them with a big hammer to prevent any potential rebellion”

      • RatBin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

        • havocpants@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • Psythik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

  • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • maculata@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You are a very good person.

      This is utterly irrelevant to people copying multi-million sales dickshits like Metallica.

  • garyyo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    7 months ago

    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
    
    • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

    • 0x2d@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      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

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 months ago

    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

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This was more or less standard 20 years ago!

    Even disabling the ability to select text and sometimes also dissabling the Ctrl + C shortcut!

    • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      The latter is still done by old code and outdated management that thinks disabling the clipboard is “more secure”. It’s fucking infuriating.

    • Willdrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      7 months ago

      No need, at least on Firefox you can hold down shift (or alt? I never remember) + right click to bypass such restrictions

    • Overshoot2648@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      There are extensions that will download any media you want as long as it is in the source. There’s a double left click to save an image one that is very useful.