Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
According to the big tech its ok if you're training large language model with it.
You're confusing the law that applies for the ruling class with the one that applies to common people
My brain is essentially an enormous language model.
Unironically yes, you would not know who Spiderman was without viewing a copyrighted work demonstrating what he looks like, and now you understand while generative AI fundamentally has to ingest copyrighted works.
If you can see it, you've already downloaded it. You're just chosing to retain it.
As with everything with the law, it depends.
In Australia, distribution is the illegal part, seeding/sharing is where they get you. Not the actual download itself.
It's usually not a question of legality, but efficiency.
It's easy and efficient to bust someone for seeding, but busting hundreds for the odd file you can prove they downloaded is expensive and takes forever.
busting hundreds for the odd file you can prove they downloaded is expensive and takes forever.
And might well not be legally possible if all you have is an IP address, because lest we forget:
An IP is not an ID
You wouldn't download a car...
Nooo never...
viewable for free online
If you are viewing it on your computer, you have already downloaded it.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
already downloaded onto your computer and can be found in the browser cache
Exactly.
Ask the AI companies who scraped my sites while the media companies were DCMA-ing everything in sight and working with enforcement paid for with publuc funds to prosecute/persecute the "pirates".
It's ridiculous that Homeland Security is spending resources taking down pirate sites. That's a department specifically created to prevent terrorism, and instead they're operating as Pinkertons for broadcasting companies.
The laws are bullshit and shouldn't be followed. Information should be free to all
I never said I follow the law, I'm just wondering what the law says ;)
Not an expert, but in the U.S. making a copy of a broadcast for personal use is legal under fair-use. Anything that loads up on your computer screen you can make a copy and save it for personal use. So screen captures are by definition legal.
How exactly you copy the material on your screen gets tricky under the DMCA clusterfuck. Breaking encryption to copy the material is illegal unless there is an valid exception for fair-use. What exactly those valid exceptions are is above my paygrade.
It might be illegal to post it without permission, but you can download it all you damn well please and they can't stop you. Unless it's like government top secret something or other. In that case you probably don't want it anywhere near your computer and should probably tell somebody where you found it.
Warthunder discord server lol
Astonishing listening to the news coverage of that story where the anchors were reading some terminally online nonsense from the teleprompter about Discord "Thug Shakers"
should probably tell somebody where you found it
Somebody, as in your lawyer. Who can then inform the correct authorities, while making sure you don't become their scapegoat.
Everything on the Internet can be downloaded, copied etc
Depends on where you are. Usually if it's a legal source, you can save it. But you're not supposed to share it unless given permission. If you downloaded it from a source that's not legal, things might change, depending on the specifics of your law.
You care more than all of the ‘AI’ companies combined
If it's in the public domain, it's almost certainly legal. I don't have the general answer to your question.
Really this question shows how outdated copyright law is; in many countries it prohibits "copying", but in the age of computers nearly all accessing of information involves "copying" it in some way.
Mind posting a guide on how you tinker with those inspect element tools?
(Sorry for the late response.) Well it depends a lot on the site. Since I focus on books and scholarly articles, the ideal way is to find the URL of the original PDF. The website might show you just individual pages as images, but it might hide the link to the PDF somewhere in the code. Alternatively, you might just obtain all the URLs of the individual page images, put them all into a download manager, and later bundle them all into a new PDF. (When you open the "inspect element" window, you just have to figure out which part of the code is meant to display the pages/images to you.) Sometimes the PDFs and page images can be found in your browser cache, as I mention in the OP. There's quite some variety among the different sites, but with even the most rudimentary knowledge of web design you should be able to figure out most of them.
If need help with ripping something in particular, DM me and I'll give it a try.
They aren’t going after the hoarders, they are going after the sharers.
Digital tools as you've described could be used by the service to manage access to content. A book's author or publisher may object to the book being available for free. There may be limits on the amount of time you can read a book. Some content may be public domain but there may be versions of that content which the publisher has altered to in some way making some portions of the book not public domain.
Knowingly possessing something that was not freely provided to you or the public by the licensed owner, or otherwise known to be unprotected by copyright, is not legal. Just because a file is cached on your device does not mean you are the legal owner of that content forever.
There's a number of reasons you may be charged to download a pdf. It could be a means of legally granting ownership and sharing revenue with the content owner. It could be because the authorized provider of the content is simply charging to maintain the service you've acquired the content from. It could be both or it could be a sketchy website just trying to get your CC info.
This is coming from the perspective of someone in the US. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but imagine basic copyright laws are similar around the world.
Honestly much of your reply is confusing me and doesn't seem to be relevant to my questions. This is what I think is crucial:
Just because a file is cached on your device does not mean you are the legal owner of that content forever.
What does being "the legal owner forever" actually entail, either with regards to a physical book or its scan? And what does that mean regarding what I can legally do with the cached file on my computer?
If you have legally obtained something, you have agreed to the terms of ownership with the provider / owner / creator of the content. Whether you find a document on your computer or you have paid for it, it does not explicitly give you full ownership of that data forever.
For example: if you buy a DVD from a store, you're actually purchasing a license to watch the content of that DVD. If you were to give or sell that disc to someone else, you are transferring your permission to watch that disc to them. So, if you were to rip that movie to your computer, legally - you only have permission to watch that for as long as you are in possession of that physical media.
Conversely, if you were to "buy" a movie from an online platform, they may relinquish your right to watch that movie if the publisher of that content (or a government agency) no longer permits them to stream that content to you. If you were to download that movie, that does not change the agreement you made with the service to watch it. This is why it's not possible to save an iTunes video purchase to your computer in a non-encrypted format.
In other words, you've got to read the terms and conditions. Even then, they may change the terms and conditions of the agreement.
Terms and conditions are NOT copyright law. They are a separate agreement that is the companies "wishlist" of things they want the consumer to agree too. It's common for them to spell out terms in direct conflict with copyright law.
The reason that an iTunes video purchase is encrypted is because it is illegal to break the encryption in order to make a copy (DMCA). However capturing the playback and transforming it to another medium is for personal use is fair-use.
There is also no time limit to how long a person can save the copy for. As long as they had legal access to the content at the time of making the copy. For example say I recorded a football game from a streaming service. I can save that copy for personal use for the rest of my life even though I purchased a one time only streaming.
Sure. Regardless, their terms and conditions should give you some idea of how they're using technology to permit and/or restrict access.
The reason that an iTunes video purchase is ~~encrypted~~ illegal to copy is because it is illegal to break the encryption in order to make a copy
FTFY
I don't think content providers are encrypting things because it's illegal to decrypt things. They're encrypting things because the content producers (movie studios) want to ensure that (1) they're getting paid for the content, (1B) it's not given away for free and, (2) they're in business to make money.
To my knowledge, there are no laws about making copies. Breaking encryption is illegal because the encryption itself is protected under law. Selling copies is illegal. Playing copies of something for which you are not permitted or do not legally own a license to watch is illegal. So, if you make a copy of a cassette tape, legal; profiting from that copy, illegal.
Copyright law is not contract law.
Some items have time limits - such as renting a movie from iTunes or Amazon or borrowing a book from a physical or digital library. You are entering a contract with the provider where they grant you temporary access to something. If you were to make a copy of something you were given temporary access to, you are breaking the contract.
I don't know what the agreement is for football organizations or your content provider. If you're breaking broadcast or HDMI encryption to record a stream, that's illegal. If you're somehow bypassing encryption, that is probably legal. I do know that it's illegal to re-broadcast the content in public and to resell that program. There are also some fair use rules (in the US) which permit limited use for commentary and education purposes.