7
Are we doing crimes when scrapping data online? For example public available music? (jeferson.me)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm trying to get to a reason on this, but my point reach to a limit.

I've the feels that scraping the internet for public accessible data, like for example open and public music on Spotify wouldn't be a crime, but the distribution would be. At the same token, this is seem as a crime, while Google does the same and nothing happens, even worse, if this get regulated, Google would have a huge advantage on anyone else.

So, my deeper question is: "Is copyright dead?"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 6 points 5 months ago (12 children)

With the slow-death of copyright, what else is left? And if not dead, how can we reclaim it? I've so many questions, and I can't focus on a single thing :(

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

    Copyright is not dying, that is what Ai companies and those who do not care want you to believe. So you stop caring too. Copyright is an important law around the world. Just because there are loopholes and current difficulties and not being clear, does not mean its dead or dying. It just means (as always) needs some new adjustments and clarification to adapt to new technology.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (10 children)

    I've the impression that copyright isn't for the "small guy", but for the "big tech"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    It's also for the small guy, so the big guy does not steal your ideas and use it without compensation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    Th logs on my blog say otherwise

    The logs on my git repository says otherwise too

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    What exactly do you mean?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    That I've logs that prove that some companies are scraping my posts and code when they should not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    I know they do this. But it does not change the fact that copyright is for the small guy AND for the big guys.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    I don't get it them, I've strictly said in my blogs, and pages: "do not scrape", I've robots.txt also explicating stating: "do not enter bot", And yet they scrape my data. Even when it's clear that this isn't welcome, so my copyright is already violated, I can get parts of my test from the Gemini and OpenAI, so it's already in their system.

    The copyright is already broken, You are suggesting that I should try to sue them? I don't follow man... really sorry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    It's not the copyright that is broken, but its enforcement. And just because people violate copyright does not mean it is not meant for you as well. Just with any other law. Just because someone breaks the law, does not mean it was not meant for you as well. The copyright is there for you too. That is the purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Gotcha... I think I understand your point. Yet, the lack of enforcement for this law for the small guy, and the dozens of cases of the big guy using this to screw the small guy proves somewhat contrary on it... But I think that we disagree on the philosophical implication on the topic, not on the topic itself.

    And before I forget, thanks a lot for clarifying the your point of view, even that we don't fully agree in totality on the topic, I appreciate your effort and reasoning with me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Glad we understood our points of view. I honestly didn't know how to express myself better. And thank you as well staying calm without the typical forum toxicity. :-) I guess there is not much else to discuss about this particular point anymore, as we cleared any prior misunderstandings up.

    Ultimately, the law is there, the execution is not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago

    Yeah... maybe the revision shouldn't be on the law itself, but on the fact that the economic power can easily translate into law/gov power and this could be a major issue... But this is a total side-step on the topic... And another thing to my already dizzy mind to think about it :D

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent