6 ms·

It's not their site, and it's not their content. It is not ok, not in the least.

by st3v3r 10y ago

sp332 10y ago
It's the not the site owner's browser, so it's fine.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bduerst 10y ago
  >so it's fine. Not according to copyright law. Just because you have a computer (with a browser) doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content.
  - curioussavage 10y ago
    A law does not establish if something is really immoral. And until people with dollar signs in their eyes don't have all the sway in making those calls I reserve the right to resist. Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it. Real ownership is the ability to exert control over something. Divulged information cannot be controlled by the original source.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      So resist by not visiting those sites. Once you say that you are still entitled to the content, you have lost any claim to moral high ground, and are just acting like an entitled child. "Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it." This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use.
      - curioussavage 10y ago
        Oh I don't feel entitled to it at all. But If I send you a GET request and you will just send it to me now questions asked then I'm going to ask for it. Nice try. Your variation of the old "if you don't like it why don't you just move" argument is the more childish response. Besides, enforcing this intellectual property racket is paid for by my tax dollars. Lets call those "contributions" to the cause my dues. "This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use." Exactly. You imply that it is written in stone that ip is a sacred thing. Not everyone agrees.
        st3v3r 10y ago
        So why should anyone pay you for work you've done?
        sp332 10y ago
        Usually there's a contract of some sort involved. What does that have to do with copyright?
  - sp332 10y ago
    Whoever owns the copyright for the page content doesn't own the copyright for the ads. They are separate works. If I have a copyrighted work that says "please insert an ad from Google here" I am under no obligation to do so.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Copyright includes exclusive rights to determine use and distribution of a work of art. That means copyright owners may determining how their work is distributed, including requiring the bundling with other approved works for combined consumption.
      - sp332 10y ago
        Sure, but drive-by contracts are not enforceable. You'd have to present me with the terms of use and let me agree to them before showing me the content.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >but drive-by contracts are not enforceable Copyright itself isn't a contractual agreement, even though a SaaS TOS may lay out copyright agreements. Websites typically list their copyright publicly, and claiming negligence (typically) isn't considered a valid defense to infringement.
        sp332 10y ago
        Copyright is a limitation on distributing a work, not on receiving one. Copyright has no bearing on me after I get a work, as long as I don't distribute it to anyone else.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content. Am I allowed to scribble in a book that I bought? Rip out the pages?
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Depends on the type of book and the copyright holders intentions for their work.
      - wyager 10y ago
        No, it actually doesn't. If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. I thought it was obvious that my question was entirely rhetorical. Your response speaks to the insanity people have become accustomed to in IP law.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. Unless it's for fair use, you can't photocopy your textbook, for example. I think you may just be learning about the nuances of intellectual property for the first time.
        sp332 10y ago
        The answer is yes, you are allowed to scribble in a book you own and tear out pages. The answer does not depend on the "type of book" or any copyright licenses. According to US law, I am also allowed to make copies for personal use, and several other "fair use" cases, absolutely regardless of licenses.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >Fair use Precisely. Simply owning a book doesn't mean "I can do anything I want to it". The same applies to copyright material online - just because you own a computer doesn't mean you own the intellectual property on it. You're free to scribble on your computer case though.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  The same argument could be used to not pay you the money your employer pays you.
  - sp332 10y ago
    My employer and I have an agreement that we came to ahead of time. It's not like I showed up, started working, and then demanded money. I have no idea what argument you think I'm making that would be comparable to being employed.

It's not their site, and it's not their content. It is not ok, not in the least.

by st3v3r 10y ago

It's not their site, and it's not their content. It is not ok, not in the least.

sp332 10y ago

It's the not the site owner's browser, so it's fine.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bduerst 10y ago
>so it's fine. Not according to copyright law. Just because you have a computer (with a browser) doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content.
- curioussavage 10y ago
  A law does not establish if something is really immoral. And until people with dollar signs in their eyes don't have all the sway in making those calls I reserve the right to resist. Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it. Real ownership is the ability to exert control over something. Divulged information cannot be controlled by the original source.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    So resist by not visiting those sites. Once you say that you are still entitled to the content, you have lost any claim to moral high ground, and are just acting like an entitled child. "Once you send information out into the world. you DONT own it." This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use.
    - curioussavage 10y ago
      Oh I don't feel entitled to it at all. But If I send you a GET request and you will just send it to me now questions asked then I'm going to ask for it. Nice try. Your variation of the old "if you don't like it why don't you just move" argument is the more childish response. Besides, enforcing this intellectual property racket is paid for by my tax dollars. Lets call those "contributions" to the cause my dues. "This sounds like someone who believes that if something comes up in a Google image search, it's free game for anyone to use." Exactly. You imply that it is written in stone that ip is a sacred thing. Not everyone agrees.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        So why should anyone pay you for work you've done?
        sp332 10y ago
        Usually there's a contract of some sort involved. What does that have to do with copyright?
- sp332 10y ago
  Whoever owns the copyright for the page content doesn't own the copyright for the ads. They are separate works. If I have a copyrighted work that says "please insert an ad from Google here" I am under no obligation to do so.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Copyright includes exclusive rights to determine use and distribution of a work of art. That means copyright owners may determining how their work is distributed, including requiring the bundling with other approved works for combined consumption.
    - sp332 10y ago
      Sure, but drive-by contracts are not enforceable. You'd have to present me with the terms of use and let me agree to them before showing me the content.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        >but drive-by contracts are not enforceable Copyright itself isn't a contractual agreement, even though a SaaS TOS may lay out copyright agreements. Websites typically list their copyright publicly, and claiming negligence (typically) isn't considered a valid defense to infringement.
        sp332 10y ago
        Copyright is a limitation on distributing a work, not on receiving one. Copyright has no bearing on me after I get a work, as long as I don't distribute it to anyone else.
- wyager 10y ago
  > doesn't give you the right to do what you want with someone else's content. Am I allowed to scribble in a book that I bought? Rip out the pages?
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Depends on the type of book and the copyright holders intentions for their work.
    - wyager 10y ago
      No, it actually doesn't. If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. I thought it was obvious that my question was entirely rhetorical. Your response speaks to the insanity people have become accustomed to in IP law.
      - bduerst 10y ago
        >If I own a book, I can do anything I want to it. Unless it's for fair use, you can't photocopy your textbook, for example. I think you may just be learning about the nuances of intellectual property for the first time.
        sp332 10y ago
        The answer is yes, you are allowed to scribble in a book you own and tear out pages. The answer does not depend on the "type of book" or any copyright licenses. According to US law, I am also allowed to make copies for personal use, and several other "fair use" cases, absolutely regardless of licenses.
        bduerst 10y ago
        >Fair use Precisely. Simply owning a book doesn't mean "I can do anything I want to it". The same applies to copyright material online - just because you own a computer doesn't mean you own the intellectual property on it. You're free to scribble on your computer case though.
st3v3r 10y ago
The same argument could be used to not pay you the money your employer pays you.
- sp332 10y ago
  My employer and I have an agreement that we came to ahead of time. It's not like I showed up, started working, and then demanded money. I have no idea what argument you think I'm making that would be comparable to being employed.