antonim @ antonim @lemmy.dbzer0.com

old profile: /u/antonim@lemmy.world

---

Read more

Posts

59

Comments

530

Joined

2 yr. ago

You don’t have any rights to do anything else with it.

That's patently false. At a minimum, I can quote parts of your content, just as you can quote smaller portions of any published text anywhere, you don't have to ask the publisher or author for permission. It's also ridiculous and impossible to control, the content is on my private machine already, how can any law be relevant or exerted upon what I do there? I doubt you're writing this comment on the basis of your knowledge of copyright law.

Incorrect. Your browser made it do that. How that data is accessed and displayed is not controlled by me.

You're arguing semantics that really don't make any difference. The display is irrelevant, because the data by itself is stored on my computer before it is displayed. That data is what you've put up online to be accessed.

Owning the CD grants you a license to the content on that CD. That’s about as good as ownership gets there. They own the CD/license. As long as that CD exists/works. You don’t gain that same right by simply visiting a website.

I fail to see the difference between getting a CD with some data (buying it or being given for free, as e.g. a gift) and being sent some data online for free. More importantly - says who? Does copyright law say this about websites?

If an artist makes a painting… and posts a picture of it. They have no rights to the painting anymore? They deserve no ownership/pay for what they’ve done?

This simply doesn't follow from what I've written. They certainly retain the rights to the painting. Besides, "deserving pay" depends on completely different factors than the ones we're discussing, usually artists sell the actual object, the painting. A digital reproduction is, as far as most people care (I think), merely an informative reproduction, and not the real thing. Stuff that's posted online for free is... free. It wasn't intended to be made money with directly.

Your final paragraph is really confusing me, you seem to be saying that Wayback Machine is also committing theft, which I'm pretty sure is not true (I've followed the lawsuits against IA for a while and don't remember anyone invoking that term). And at this point I don't know what "theft" is even supposed to mean to you or to anyone else, and what was the point of the discussion anyway. Maybe I should reread the whole discussion carefully all over again, but I'm on my phone and it's all giving me a headache.

, it’s a salty article

Actually the author himself is somewhat harmed by this situation. I would be salty too. When I wish to write my CV, I can say: my text have been published at X and Y. Especially nice if it's an important and well known publication. Now a part of his CV is literally erased, he can't access his own texts anymore (not even on Internet Archive). That's... utterly ridiculous. It's a common practice to send the author a copy (or multiple) of the text he has published, he has every right to own a copy of them. Now the copy that was intended to be available to everyone is not available even to him. Something of the sort really has happened to me too when a website I published an article on a site underwent a redesign and now the text just isn't available anymore. Admittedly it's still on IA, but it's an awkward situation.

For what it's worth, I agree with the other commenter and, as much as I dislike AI as it currently is, I have never and probably never will bitch about the scraping. If I put things out there online, I am aware that they may be used in ways that I never intended. That's how it has always been, after all.

You've put it out there for free, though, and the data literally ends up on my machine because you made it do that, so what's the problem with me saving the data on my machine for later, and potentially sharing it elsewhere for free again?

then publishing it as your own is theft

1. This scenario (misattribution of content) has nothing to do with the previous discussion. The other commenter is making an analogy to CDs, owning a CD and lending it to others doesn't mean you're claiming its content is your own creation.
2. Theft implies deprivation of ownership. Calling this theft is like calling piracy theft. It may be illegal by this or that metric, but it's not normal theft.

Has that ever happened, though? I rarely see Mastodon comments here at all...

That honestly sounds pretty good. But there are no followers on Lemmy, so the mechanism wouldn't make much sense here.

I've just reported you to the mods. It was nice to know you.

As a gay guy, I call bullshit on that, unless you're bi and have first-hand experience.

It is a funny pic, I'll give you that.

This so much. Years ago I've had it push Moon landing denial videos in my recommendations, even though I've never watched videos on conspiracies or anything of the sort at the time. The closest I got were pop-sci channels such as Vsauce, Numberphile... It's just trying to hook you onto the garbage content and garbage ideas because they have good and loyal viewership.

But the articles literally don't exist. It's 2024, do we still have to explain that chatbots can generate nonexistent "scientific" references?

This is so obviously generated by GPT, none of these articles exist.

Yes, it's https://t.me/library_genesis_libgen_bot

Why they were down, you mean? In their TG channel they mentioned a cyberattack, that's all I know.

True, the .li domain was still fine.

There's also Anna's Archive, which I use primarily, since it provides downloads not just from their own db, but links to Libgen and other places where the given book is available.

Most domains (other than .li) were down for several days, making people worried it's gone for good.

Perhaps a paid app to track and manage your subscriptions...

I learned about furries' existence on 4chan many years ago, and I definitely don't think that site was healthy at any point in time.

Man I miss the times when Google used to trick us into helping make knowledge more easily accessible to everyone. Now we just train fucking AI for luxury cars.

It's alright for free. The slow downloads are still perfectly usable unless there are server-side issues, and they also provide links to other mirrors (libgen.li, which is still up, Z-lib, and IPFS).