Are we doing crimes when scrapping data online? For example public available music?
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?"
https://jeferson.me/blog/2026/04/16/when-crime-is-legalOpen linkView original on piefed.social
It's illegal but all AI companies do it more than you'll ever do. You have my permission.
I still buy on Bandcamp because they deserve it.
I can't care less about copyright and 'crimes' of copying.
So you don't care about GPL and Open Source then?
I guess you never created an original of anything? Maybe I read that wrong..
I hate capitalism and the way it devalues people, reducing them to consumers. The fact remains we live in it, and have to eat. If you release everything to AI crawlers, what do you eat, assuming you don't lay tiles for a living, which would make you "rich" but very busy..
you should release it as public domain; unfortunately others can't "legally" use anything just because they have access to it (no license).
yeah, it's absolutely stupid capitalist theater
I think everyone should care about lawas and legality. It's a bad advice to tell anyone to not care.
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 :(
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.
I've the impression that copyright isn't for the "small guy", but for the "big tech"
It's also for the small guy, so the big guy does not steal your ideas and use it without compensation.
Th logs on my blog say otherwise
The logs on my git repository says otherwise too
What exactly do you mean?
I did, obtaining a monopoly on it would go counter my beliefs. Anyway originality is overrated and very hard to measure. Especially now.
Not only copyright is dead but so is licensing of things in general. This means there’ll be less original work from both commercial and non-commercial projects. Commercially there won’t be ways to profit so why bother. On the libre licensing front why would you contribute code to GPL licensed projects or release art under Creative Commons if it’s going to be license washed anyway?
Legally, check your local laws or just be sure to cover your ass with tor or a VPN with an anonymous core.
Ethically, just obey Wheaton's Law: "Don't be a dick."
With web scraping, I can think of two ways Wheaton's law applies:
Scrapers should blend into existing background web traffic. They should be slow enough to not overwhelm their servers. This requires babysitting any new scraper until one is sure it is tuned to be safe for the scraped site.
Any scraped content shouldn't be re-hosted in a way that harms the original content creators. Sharing is lovely. Harming artists sucks. Finding the right balance between preservation and respect can take some thought, but it's usually actually a pretty wide road.
As far as I understand, Google scrapes data, processes it and uses it for commercial cases. It's a company, not a private person scraping and using for personal cases. A very important distinction.
Since it's a company, it should not use our data, right? right? It's my data, it can't use my post for training, right? It's not fair use... right?
Google would have some kind of licence in place I suspect. But what about people with photographic memory?