Yes, and when I archived your website, I became the owner of that specific copy of your website.
No, I never granted you any ownership of my content. Period. You didnβt pay me, you didnβt engage in any contract with me.
Simply archiving my stuff and running away then publishing it as your own is theft.
Copyright only protects distribution and derivative works. I can keep a copy of it on my local machine for as long as I want. Theoretically I can keep it until the copyright expires and then I can do whatever the fuck I want with it.
I can keep it until the copyright expires and then I can do whatever the fuck I want with it.
general copyright is 70 years. So no. You couldnβt do whatever you wanted with it as the computer youβre using would be long deadβ¦ and possibly youβd even be long dead. Replicating the content to another device without owners consent could and likely would be a violation of that same copyright.
Youβve put it out there for free, though, and the data literally ends up on my machine because you made it do that, so whatβs 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
-
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 doesnβt mean youβre claiming its content is your own creation.
-
Theft implies deprivation of ownership. Calling this theft is like calling piracy theft. It may be illegal by this or that metric, but itβs not normal theft.
Youβve put it out there for free
Irrelevant. Itβs still my content that I have sole rights to. If I want to share it to individuals I can do that if I please. You donβt have any rights to do anything else with it.
and the data literally ends up on my machine because you made it do that
Incorrect. Your browser made it do that. How that data is accessed and displayed is not controlled by me. Case and point you can have extensions on your browser that changes how my websites are rendered.
That doesnβt give you a right to replicate my content elsewhere.
and potentially sharing it elsewhere for free again?
Because itβs not yours? And publishing it again elsewhere is effectively you claiming it is yours. Especially if published without attribution.
You guys canβt have this both ways. If an artist makes a paintingβ¦ and posts a picture of it. They have no rights to the painting anymore? They deserve no ownership/pay for what theyβve done? If a news story is publishedβ¦ They have no rights to sell that story to another publisher just because you can copy and paste the text? This is absurd logic. My website has/had a cost. I bore it. I have sole rights to that content.
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 doesnβt mean youβre claiming its content is your own creation.
No, this has to do with rights of the content. Owning the CD grants you a license to the content on that CD. Thatβs about as good as ownership gets there. They own the CD/license. As long as that CD exists/works. You donβt gain that same right by simply visiting a website.
Theft implies deprivation of ownership. Calling this theft is like calling piracy theft. It may be illegal by this or that metric, but itβs not normal theft.
No it doesnβt. Taking content and using in an unauthorized way while gaining money or some other consideration is also theft. Wayback Machine and other archives are paid for somehow. If some content being on a site swayed someone to make a donation to that archive site, then that value should have gone to the original creator. That is theft. This is the core of most of the current lawsuits. Although they often equate this to βpotential and future earningsβ which is bullshit because oftentimes that content would never be have been viewed at whatever cost they ascribed.
Well the whole premise of their argument is flawed because theyβre basing it on the fact of redistribution. If Iβm not redistributing it, then the whole argument of that falls away entirely. Under fair use, I believe youβre also allowed to make copies of things for research purposes, so Iβd argue thatβs what an archive is.
Iβd better never see you bitching about AI scraping your content. Iβll remind you of this very comment.
For what itβs 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. Thatβs how it has always been, after all.
