4 ms·
> Internet users are entitled to all resources returned to their user agent by a request. This is legally false. If a digital artist creates a painting and put
by fouric 8y ago
> Internet users are entitled to all resources returned to their user agent by a request.
This is legally false. If a digital artist creates a painting and puts it up on their website, and you go view it, it does not become yours. The artist retains the copyright to the work, and not only is it illegal for you to then sell prints of it, but a violation of ethics, to boot.
- krapp 8y ago>If a digital artist creates a painting and puts it up on their website, and you go view it, it does not become yours. Of course the image is mine, just as an image of the painting in a newspaper or brochure would be mine, it's a copy freely distributed by the copyright owner. I'm perfectly within my legal rights to do whatever I want with it, within the confines of the browser. I'm not claiming i have the right to sell it or anything, but I absolutely do have the right to decide whether or not it shows up.
- 51lver 8y agoActually you have a lot more rights than that. Your rights stop when you want to distribute unmodified or derivative works without authorization. Nothing is stopping you from remixing ANYTHING* if you have no intent to distribute it. *if it was legally acquired. Remixing illegal stuff would still be possession of illegal stuff.
- krageon 8y agoPlease stop abusing "ethics" to force your own moral framework on other people. This isn't what it is, and on top of that (given that it's different for everyone) if you need to say it the reader already knows you are wrong.
- krapp 8y agoWhen did I mention "ethics" or any moral framework? It's simply a matter of common sense, legal precedent and the way HTTP works. To claim otherwise would mean companies have the right to force me not to alter the content of their responses in my browser, in order to guarantee their ads are viewed. If this were true, all browsers and many plugins would already be illegal, as would ad blockers, whose legality has been confirmed in multiple court cases. Ethics and morality don't enter into the discussion. If I want to support a site by viewing their ads, I can. If I don't, I don't have to. The choice is mine to make. Sites depending on ad revenue, meanwhile, can try as hard as they want to convince me to choose to view their ads, but they have no legal right, nor technical ability to make me, as long as we're talking about content that can be filtered out of an HTTP response by a browser I control.