3 ms·

If the user specifically asks for a file and asks a computer program to process it in a specific way, it should be permitted, regardless of user-agent spoofing

If the user specifically asks for a file and asks a computer program to process it in a specific way, it should be permitted, regardless of user-agent spoofing (although user-agent spoofing should (normally) ideally only be done when the user specifically requests it; it should not do so automatically). However, this is better when using FOSS and/or local programs (or if the user is accessing them through a proxy, VPN, Tor, etc). Furthermore, any company that provides such services should not use unethical business practices, false advertising, etc, to do so. If the company wants a copy of the files for your own use, then that is a bit different. When accessing large number of files at once, robots.txt is useful to block it. If they can get a copy of the files in a different way (assuming the files are intended to be public anyways), then they might do so. However, even in this case, still they should not use unethical business practices, false advertising, etc; and, they should also avoid user-agent spoofing. (In this case, the reason for the user-agent spoofing does not seem to be deliberate, since it uses a headless browser. They should still change it though; probably by keeping the user-agent string but adding on a extra part such as "Perplexity", to indicate that it is what it is, in addition to the headless browser.)

EGreg 2y ago
A user-agent requests the file using your credentials, eg a cookie or public key signature. It is transforming the content for you, an authorized party. That is not the same as then making derivative copies and distributing the information to others without paying. For example, if I bought a ticket to a show, taped it and then distributed it to everyone, disregarding that the show prohibited this. If I shared my Netflix password with up to 5 others, at least I can argue that they are part of my “family” or something. But to unlimited numbers of people? Why would they pay for netflix, and how would the shows get made? I am not necessarily endorsing government force enforcing copyright, which is why I have been building a solution to enforce it at the tech level: https://Qbix.com/ecosystem https://Qbix.com/ecosystem
- zzo38computer 2y ago
  Well, I am opposed to copyright. If it is publicly available, then you can make a copy, and even a modified version (as long as you do not claim that it is the same as the original). However, what you say about credentials is still valid in the case of private data; this is why you should run the program locally and not use some other company's remote service for this use. (Well, it is one reason why. Other reason is all of the other bad stuff they do with the service.) It is also valid about credentials, even if it is published but requires a password to access using that service; but even then, if you would ignore copyright, you can just use a different copy of the same file (which you might make by yourself). None of this is meaning that you cannot pay for it, if they accept payment. It is also not meaning that whoever made it is required to give it away for free. What it is meaning, is that if you have a copy, you do not have to worry about copyright and other legal mess; you can just to do it; a license is not required. However, it is also another issue how much power big companies are wasting with your data, whether they are authorized to access it or not. This is potentially a reason to disallow some uses, but that is independent from copyright (which is bad, anyways).

EGreg 2y ago

A user-agent requests the file using your credentials, eg a cookie or public key signature. It is transforming the content for you, an authorized party. That is not the same as then making derivative copies and distributing the information to others without paying. For example, if I bought a ticket to a show, taped it and then distributed it to everyone, disregarding that the show prohibited this. If I shared my Netflix password with up to 5 others, at least I can argue that they are part of my “family” or something. But to unlimited numbers of people? Why would they pay for netflix, and how would the shows get made? I am not necessarily endorsing government force enforcing copyright, which is why I have been building a solution to enforce it at the tech level: https://Qbix.com/ecosystem https://Qbix.com/ecosystem

zzo38computer 2y ago
Well, I am opposed to copyright. If it is publicly available, then you can make a copy, and even a modified version (as long as you do not claim that it is the same as the original). However, what you say about credentials is still valid in the case of private data; this is why you should run the program locally and not use some other company's remote service for this use. (Well, it is one reason why. Other reason is all of the other bad stuff they do with the service.) It is also valid about credentials, even if it is published but requires a password to access using that service; but even then, if you would ignore copyright, you can just use a different copy of the same file (which you might make by yourself). None of this is meaning that you cannot pay for it, if they accept payment. It is also not meaning that whoever made it is required to give it away for free. What it is meaning, is that if you have a copy, you do not have to worry about copyright and other legal mess; you can just to do it; a license is not required. However, it is also another issue how much power big companies are wasting with your data, whether they are authorized to access it or not. This is potentially a reason to disallow some uses, but that is independent from copyright (which is bad, anyways).