3 ms·

I'm curious to know where you draw the line for what constitutes legitimate manipulation by a person and when it becomes distribution. I'm assuming that if I w

I'm curious to know where you draw the line for what constitutes legitimate manipulation by a person and when it becomes distribution. I'm assuming that if I write code by hand for every part of the TCP/IP and HTTP stack I'm safe. What if I use libraries written by other people for the TCP/IP and HTTP part? What if I use a whole FOSS web browser? What about a paid local web browser? What if I run a script that I wrote on a cloud server? What if I then allow other people to download and use that script on their own cloud servers? What if I decide to offer that script as a service for free to friends and family, who can use my cloud server? What if I offer it for free to the general public? What if I start accepting money for that service, but I guarantee that only the one person who asked for the site sees the output? Can you help me to understand where exactly I crossed the line?

gpm 2y ago
Obviously not legal advice and I doubt it's entirely settled law, but probably this step > What if I decide to offer that script as a service for free to friends and family, who can use my cloud server? You're allowed to make copies and adaptations in order to utilize the program (website), which probably covers a cloud server you yourself are controlling. You aren't allowed to do other things with those copies though, like distribute them to other people. Payment only matters if we're getting into "free use" arguments, and I don't think any really apply here. I think you're probably already in trouble with just offering it to family and friends, but if you take the next step offering it to the public that adds more issues because the copyright act includes definitions like "To perform or display a work “publicly” means (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."
- lolinder 2y ago
  Why is that the line and not a paid web browser? What about a paid web browser whose primary feature is a really powerful ad blocker?
  - gpm 2y ago
    Why would a paid web browser be the line? No one is distributing copies of anything to anyone then apart from the website that owns the content lawfully distributing a copy to the user. Also why is a paid web browser any different than a free one?
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Paid is arguably different than free because the code that is actually asking for the data is owned by a company and licensed to the user, in much the same way as a cloud server licenses usage of their servers to the user. That said, I'll note that my argument is explicitly that the line doesn't exist, so I'm not saying a paid browser is the line. I'm unfamiliar with the legal questions, but in 2024 I have a very hard time seeing an ethical distinction between running some proprietary code on my machine to complete a task and running some proprietary code on a cloud server to complete a task. In both cases it's just me asking someone else's code to fetch data for my use.
      - gpm 2y ago
        Great, so we agree that your previous comment asking I address "paid browsers" in particular was an unnecessary distraction. > I have a very hard time seeing an ethical distinction between running some proprietary code on my machine to complete a task and running some proprietary code on a cloud server to complete a task It's important to recognize that copyright is entirely artificial. Congress went "let's grant creators some monopolies on their work so that they can make money off of it", and then made up some arbitrary lines for what they did and did not have a monopoly over. There's no principled ethical distinction between what is on one side of the line and the other, it's just where congress drew the arbitrary line in the sand. It then (arguably) becomes unethical to do things on the illegal side of the line precisely because we as a society agreed to respect the laws that put them on the illegal side of the line so that creators can make money in a fair and level playing field. Sometimes the lines in the sand were in fact quite problematic. Like the fact that the original phrasing meant that running a computer program would almost certainly violate that law. So whenever that comes up congress amends the exact details of the line... in the US in the case of computers carving out an exception in section 117 of the copyright act. It provides that (in part) > it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner and provides the restriction that > Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner. By my very much not a lawyer reading of the law, those are the relevant parts of the law, they allow things like local ad-blockers, they disallow a third party website which downloads content (acquiring ownership on a lawfully made copy), modifies it (valid under the first exception if that was a step in using the website) and distributes the adapted website to their users (illegal without permission).
blendergeek 2y ago
Where exactly you crossed the line is a question for the courts. I am not a lawyer and will there for not help with the specifics. However, please see the Aereo case [0] for a possibly analogous case. I am allowed to have a DVR. There is no law preventing me from accessing my DVR over a network. Or possibly even colocating it in a local data center. But Aereo definitely crossed a line. Also see Vidangel [1]. The fact that something is legal to do at home, does not mean that I can offer it as a cloud service. [0] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18073200/aereo https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18073200/aereo [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Which is offensive and the legal structure underlying that should be changed. Renting out machines, where a person could legally install and use the exact same machine, makes zero sense to count as "distribution".
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >Where exactly you crossed the line is a question for the courts. I am not a lawyer and will there for not help with the specifics. I expect you're right. Although Perplexity thinks they're well within the law[0]. Are they correct? I guess we'll see.... [0] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Why-are-you-2wJteqZ4SUCqPjk.zZdF8g https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Why-are-you-2wJteqZ4SUCqPjk...

gpm 2y ago

Obviously not legal advice and I doubt it's entirely settled law, but probably this step > What if I decide to offer that script as a service for free to friends and family, who can use my cloud server? You're allowed to make copies and adaptations in order to utilize the program (website), which probably covers a cloud server you yourself are controlling. You aren't allowed to do other things with those copies though, like distribute them to other people. Payment only matters if we're getting into "free use" arguments, and I don't think any really apply here. I think you're probably already in trouble with just offering it to family and friends, but if you take the next step offering it to the public that adds more issues because the copyright act includes definitions like "To perform or display a work “publicly” means (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times."

lolinder 2y ago
Why is that the line and not a paid web browser? What about a paid web browser whose primary feature is a really powerful ad blocker?
- gpm 2y ago
  Why would a paid web browser be the line? No one is distributing copies of anything to anyone then apart from the website that owns the content lawfully distributing a copy to the user. Also why is a paid web browser any different than a free one?
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Paid is arguably different than free because the code that is actually asking for the data is owned by a company and licensed to the user, in much the same way as a cloud server licenses usage of their servers to the user. That said, I'll note that my argument is explicitly that the line doesn't exist, so I'm not saying a paid browser is the line. I'm unfamiliar with the legal questions, but in 2024 I have a very hard time seeing an ethical distinction between running some proprietary code on my machine to complete a task and running some proprietary code on a cloud server to complete a task. In both cases it's just me asking someone else's code to fetch data for my use.
    - gpm 2y ago
      Great, so we agree that your previous comment asking I address "paid browsers" in particular was an unnecessary distraction. > I have a very hard time seeing an ethical distinction between running some proprietary code on my machine to complete a task and running some proprietary code on a cloud server to complete a task It's important to recognize that copyright is entirely artificial. Congress went "let's grant creators some monopolies on their work so that they can make money off of it", and then made up some arbitrary lines for what they did and did not have a monopoly over. There's no principled ethical distinction between what is on one side of the line and the other, it's just where congress drew the arbitrary line in the sand. It then (arguably) becomes unethical to do things on the illegal side of the line precisely because we as a society agreed to respect the laws that put them on the illegal side of the line so that creators can make money in a fair and level playing field. Sometimes the lines in the sand were in fact quite problematic. Like the fact that the original phrasing meant that running a computer program would almost certainly violate that law. So whenever that comes up congress amends the exact details of the line... in the US in the case of computers carving out an exception in section 117 of the copyright act. It provides that (in part) > it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: > (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner and provides the restriction that > Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner. By my very much not a lawyer reading of the law, those are the relevant parts of the law, they allow things like local ad-blockers, they disallow a third party website which downloads content (acquiring ownership on a lawfully made copy), modifies it (valid under the first exception if that was a step in using the website) and distributes the adapted website to their users (illegal without permission).

blendergeek 2y ago

Where exactly you crossed the line is a question for the courts. I am not a lawyer and will there for not help with the specifics. However, please see the Aereo case [0] for a possibly analogous case. I am allowed to have a DVR. There is no law preventing me from accessing my DVR over a network. Or possibly even colocating it in a local data center. But Aereo definitely crossed a line. Also see Vidangel [1]. The fact that something is legal to do at home, does not mean that I can offer it as a cloud service. [0] https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18073200/aereo https://www.vox.com/2018/11/7/18073200/aereo [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_v._VidAngel

Dylan16807 2y ago
Which is offensive and the legal structure underlying that should be changed. Renting out machines, where a person could legally install and use the exact same machine, makes zero sense to count as "distribution".
nobody9999 2y ago
>Where exactly you crossed the line is a question for the courts. I am not a lawyer and will there for not help with the specifics. I expect you're right. Although Perplexity thinks they're well within the law[0]. Are they correct? I guess we'll see.... [0] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Why-are-you-2wJteqZ4SUCqPjk.zZdF8g https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Why-are-you-2wJteqZ4SUCqPjk...