3 ms·

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

by 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).

by EGreg 2y ago

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).