• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 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
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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/).

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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
          1
          ·
          6 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
            1
            ·
            6 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
              1
              ·
              6 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.

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 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.

        • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 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
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 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
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 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
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 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.

  • garyyo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 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
      2
      ·
      6 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
      2
      ·
      6 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
    5
    ·
    6 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

  • Daxtron2@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 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.

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

      Also in some browsers (I know Gecko-based ones at least), you can override JavaScript by holding shift while you right-click.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

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

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 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.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 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
      2
      ·
      6 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
        1
        ·
        6 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.

    • XTL@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

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

  • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    There is a 100% chance this warning correlates with the actual content on this site being hot garbage

  • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 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
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You are a very good person.

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