3 ms·

> Anyone can, that’s orthogonal. Ok. So anyone "can" use a computer to do the same thing then. With the added part of "using a computer" it is now directly c

• anileated 2y ago
  If you “use a computer” to watch a pirated film, does that make the practice legal? > The tool is used by a person. The person is the one who takes the action, not the computer. So the point stands. If watching that pirated film helps you learn something, does that make it legal? If the film was pirated not by you but by some for-profit company that charges you for watching it, does that make it legal?
  • stale2002 2y ago
    > Can you “use a computer” to watch a pirated film? Sure. Is it legal? Nah. In many circumstances you can't mass distribute completely identical, non transformative, non fair use copies of large portions other people's copyrighted works, if thats what you meant. But there are many exceptions to that rule where you are allowed to use or distribute other people's works. And just like a human being is allowed to use other people's copyrighted works in those many exceptions, a human is also allowed to use a computer to take advantage of those legal exceptions. The only point here is that when you brought up that this uses a computer in your first post, thats not really a relevant detail. A person can use those exceptions that allow them to use other people's copyrighted works, and they can do that with or without a computer and it is legal in those exceptions either way. > If watching that pirated film helps you learn something, does that make it legal? > If the film was pirated not by you but by some for-profit company that charges you for watching it, does that make it legal? It depends on many factors. Yes there are many cases where yes it is legal to use other people's works. Edit: Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims.
    • anileated 2y ago
      > In most circumstances you can't mass distribute completely identical, non transformative, non fair use copies of large portions other people's copyrighted works That law was defined long before there was a capability to launder authorship at scale in the way being discussed. The law does not account for this novel capability. The law is intended to protect IP, which promotes innovation and creativity by creating relevant incentives. If that was the intention of the law, and it is not interpreted in that way, it ought to be revised for it to continue to serve those objectives. > Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims. This only shows that you read the headline. It does not show that you (or the judge) are correct about the core issue.
      • stale2002 2y ago
        > The law does not account for the new capability. Gotcha. Well, fortunately, you are commenting on a post right now where the judge threw out the copyright claims. So, apparently, I am correct that in this circumstance, that there is no illegal copyright infringement. > promotes innovation and creativity I'm this circumstance, it does seem to be promoting innovation and creativity because the AI stuff is allowed! Glad you agree.
        • anileated 2y ago
          It’s not a discussion about how the law is being interpreted by a particular court; that much is clear. It’s about how it ought to be interpreted.
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
          • danielmarkbruce 2y ago
            It's more likely that relevant legislation needs to change if folks want the law to be different, rather than look to courts.