• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Copyright applies to distribution, not consumption. You violate no law when I create an unauthorized copy of a work

    This is completely untrue. Making any unauthorised copy is an infringement of copyright. Hell, the UK determined that merely loading a pirated game into RAM was unauthorised copying, making the act of playing a pirated game unlawful - thankfully this is ruling only the case in the UK, however the basic principles of copyright are the same all over the world.

    When you buy something, you get a limited license to make copies for the purpose of viewing the material. That license does not extend to making backup copies. However, in a practical sense, it is very unlikely you will be prosecuted for most kinds of infringement like this - particularly when no money is involved. It’s still infringement, though.

    Edit: I will say though: you violate no law when you view a copy I create. However I would still be infringing for making and showing you the copy.

    In the case of making a book report, that is educational, and thus fair use. ChatGPT is not educational - you might use it for education, but ChatGPT’s use of copyrighted material is for commercial enterprise.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The uploader is the person creating the copy. Downloading is not creating a copy; downloading is receiving a copy.

      I would love to see a citation on that UK precedent, but as you said: “thankfully this is only the case in the UK” and does not apply in the rest of the world.

      Making any unauthorised copy is an infringement of copyright.

      The exceptions to that are so numerous that the statement is closer to false than truth. “Fair Use” blows the absolute nature of that statement out of the water.

      There has never been a successful prosecution for downloading only.

      • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every single transfer of data is a copy. There is no such thing as moving data. Only copying it and then voluntarily deleting the original, to fake it having “moved”

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Every single transmission of data is a copy. Receiving data is not. The person creating the copy is the sender, not the receiver.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            I feel you guys are arguing very precise legal matters without defining the jurisdiction. I mean sure, go ahead, but it’s meaningless. One could say “I live in this random country and we don’t even have a concept of copyright, therefore it does not exist!”

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sarah Silverman is an American actress. OpenAI is an American country. Relevant jurisdiction was defined in the headline.

          • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            eh it gets fuzzy. the sender transmits, but the receiver also writes a copy. it gets copied to the wire, and it gets copied from the wire. there is an ephemeral intermediate copy “on the wire”. I guess there’s no right answer; it’s like a fractal, the answer keeps changing when you look deeper

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              eh it gets fuzzy. the sender transmits, but the receiver also writes a copy

              Got a Ring doorbell? A security camera? If I walk up to your camera and start playing a copyrighted work, have you infringed on copyright? Of course not. The recording you saved now contains a copy of the work, but you were privileged in recording at the time.

              That doesn’t change when you ask me to come “send” that work to your camera. You are free to ask for something that I am not obligated to provide. If I choose to provide it, I am the infringing party, not you.

              Downloading is no different. You ask me to use a specific protocol to send a specific work to a specific port at a specific address. I can choose to do that, or I can tell you to pound sand. If I choose to send it, I am the infringing party, not you.

              The specific processes applied by the computer to save and replay the work would not qualify as “copying” under copyright law. If they did, viewing any copyrighted work would be an infringement, as the computer uses those same processes to view legitimate copies as illegitimate.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re not talking about fair use though - which also is incredibly limited. It only applies to education, news or criticism. Fair use would be an authorised copy, by definition.

        and does not apply in the rest of the world.

        The specific ruling does not apply to the rest of the world, so there is no established precedent elsewhere that playing a pirated video game is an offense. This just means someone wishing to prosecute this offense would have no case law to back up their claim. However the principle that led to the ruling is the same - you need a license to make a copy (except for fair use, which as I say would rarely apply) and computers copy files internally in order to display their content.

        The uploader is the person creating the copy. Downloading is not creating a copy; downloading is receiving a copy.

        One person is providing a copy to someone else - that person is infringing copyright - and the person receiving is writing a copy to their device, and furthermore needs to make copies to display the content - that person is also infringing copyright.

        You can’t open a file like you would a book. You need to copy and process the file in order to display it.

        There has never been a successful prosecution for downloading only.

        There have been no prosecutions for downloading only because the level of damages is so low that it isn’t worth the cost of going to court. That doesn’t make it less illegal, it’s just more likely you’ll get away with it.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t open a file like you would a book. You need to copy and process the file in order to display it.

          That precedent has never been set in the US. The “process” you’re talking about for a human to open a digital book is not considered “copying” under US law.

          There have been no prosecutions for downloading only because the level of damages is so low

          That is a theory. Not a very compelling one, given the level of pettiness we regularly see in the courts. The precedent of a successful prosecution for downloading would be extremely valuable to rights holders: it would have a chilling effect on the entire community of pirates. The reverse is also true: a failed prosecution would lend a great deal of legitimacy to piracy for personal consumption.

          The actual reason why rights holders aren’t pressing cases against downloaders is because they know they will fail. Copyright law is not written or interpreted in such a way as to enable prosecution of people for receiving a work, or even for requesting a work be sent to them. Copyright law envisions pirate distributors, not consumers.