3 ms·

The first two situations you mention almost certainly aren’t copyright violations. The third is at least a solid “maybe.”

JohnFen 4y ago
The third exists in a form right now. I've worked for a couple of companies that require all code to be run through a scanner intended to detect if that code has been lifted from open source codebases. You won't get fired if it has, but you will be required to remove it before it is accepted into the codebase.
elcomet 4y ago
They aren't, or they shouldn't be, but that's the point of the parent's comment. Look at the videos flagged by youtube or copyright trolls, a lot of them are not actual copyright violations, but they are flagged anyway by the algorithm and removed or demonetized. And it takes a lot of work to fight those claims.
- paulcole 4y ago
  No, that doesn’t seem to be the point of the parent’s comment. That comment is treating those activities like copyright violations when they’re not. Why would the parent imagine an omniscient copyright bot that is probably wrong? Me singing happy birthday at home or painting a picture for myself to relax is already demonetized. There doesn’t need to be an omniscient (and wrong) copyright bot to do that.
bediger4000 4y ago
The first situation isn't copyright violation because some monied entity went out and litigated against Warner/Chappell music. That's the problem with copyright - until you've litigated, which is expensive, you just can't tell what's in and what's out of copyright. You wrote "almost certainly" because of that.
- paulcole 4y ago
  > You wrote "almost certainly" because of that. No, I didn’t. I was hedging against the too-clever HN commenter coming back and saying, “The robot knew you were going to sell the painting” or “You sang the game on the Jumbotron at Yankee Stadium.”
  - bediger4000 4y ago
    Because of the litigation, even singing "Happy birthday to you" on the Jumbotron is not infringement. But only because of the litigation.

JohnFen 4y ago

The third exists in a form right now. I've worked for a couple of companies that require all code to be run through a scanner intended to detect if that code has been lifted from open source codebases. You won't get fired if it has, but you will be required to remove it before it is accepted into the codebase.

elcomet 4y ago

They aren't, or they shouldn't be, but that's the point of the parent's comment. Look at the videos flagged by youtube or copyright trolls, a lot of them are not actual copyright violations, but they are flagged anyway by the algorithm and removed or demonetized. And it takes a lot of work to fight those claims.

paulcole 4y ago
No, that doesn’t seem to be the point of the parent’s comment. That comment is treating those activities like copyright violations when they’re not. Why would the parent imagine an omniscient copyright bot that is probably wrong? Me singing happy birthday at home or painting a picture for myself to relax is already demonetized. There doesn’t need to be an omniscient (and wrong) copyright bot to do that.

bediger4000 4y ago

The first situation isn't copyright violation because some monied entity went out and litigated against Warner/Chappell music. That's the problem with copyright - until you've litigated, which is expensive, you just can't tell what's in and what's out of copyright. You wrote "almost certainly" because of that.

paulcole 4y ago
> You wrote "almost certainly" because of that. No, I didn’t. I was hedging against the too-clever HN commenter coming back and saying, “The robot knew you were going to sell the painting” or “You sang the game on the Jumbotron at Yankee Stadium.”
- bediger4000 4y ago
  Because of the litigation, even singing "Happy birthday to you" on the Jumbotron is not infringement. But only because of the litigation.