• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    332
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 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
      134
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      8 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
        59
        ·
        8 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
          21
          ·
          8 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
            8
            ·
            8 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
              12
              ·
              8 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
        7
        ·
        8 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
      48
      ·
      edit-2
      8 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
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 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
          ·
          8 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
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            8 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
              8 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
                8 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
                  ·
                  8 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.

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 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
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 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.

    • rab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        8 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
          8
          ·
          8 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
        8 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.

  • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

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

  • Kindness@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 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.

  • Betch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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!

      • Betch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        … Jesus fucking christ. My research is invalid. I’m going to have to start all over again. 🤬

      • Betch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Right?? It’s crunchy! That’s what all audiophiles want. Crunchiness.

        • myster0n@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Betch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

      • Betch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

    • Canadian_Cabinet @lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

      • Betch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I would need a boulder yo. My headphones have an impedence of 170,000 ohms. This will have to do.

          • Betch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

      • Betch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Sorry I can’t sell any at all. Not even a gram. I have exactly enough for myself, nothing to spare.

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

            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.

  • garyyo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    8 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
      6
      ·
      8 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
      5
      ·
      8 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

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.

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

      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.

    • riquisimo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.