Hacker News

points by littlecranky67 3 days ago | 0 comments

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but if you do not want your content to be scraped, you have to put it behind payment walls and copyright it. In Germany we have decisions from the highest courts that deemed websracping perfectly legal (it was in the context of a competitor scraping airline ticket fares).

[–] ffsm8 3 days ago

They ignored the licenses, so kinda moot point you're making.

[–] littlecranky67 2 days ago

And how were those license conditions violated by downloading? Their are permissive in the first place, and violating without passing on to a third party is almost impossible.

[–] ffsm8 2 days ago

Were they used in a commercial context when a commercial entity downloaded it?

If yes, they were in violation of the license. Fyi, that's explicitly stated in the article we're commenting on.

[–] littlecranky67 2 days ago

Supposedly they are, that is enforceable how? Download is not anything. Training AI on them is not anything. Using the trained model is not a violation of the terms just because you think it should be.

[–] ffsm8 2 days ago

i see. as long as i can download Software that is made available for free for students its completely legal to do so and use them commercially as a non-student, after all its freely downloadable.

good thing you explained how copyright works legally, almost spend my money unnecessarily.

[–] littlecranky67 2 days ago

COPYright becomes relevant once you COPY something. As in, give it to a third party. I don't see any third party involved here. The download itself is not subject to copyright - licensing terms may or may not apply - and just because the license text says something doesn't mean it holds up in court.

[–] ffsm8 2 days ago

Til you can download something without copying said something.

Wouldve been great to know for people that have been found guilty after downloading illegal and unlicensed content.

Fyi, the nation you mentioned (Germany) adheres to a much stricter concept called Urheberrecht. Under this regulation, you're actually in even more legal trouble. Though Roblox ain't German, so kinda irrelevant, admittedly

[–] phoghed 2 days ago

Yes, as of now, you can do exactly what you assume that Roblox did. How is this still surprising to people?

[–] paxy 2 days ago

How do you know what context it was used in?

[–] echoangle 2 days ago

If it’s fair use, the license doesn’t matter.

[–] anticensor 1 day ago

It's beyond fair use, it's statutory exemption to copyright and data protection in certain jurisdictions.

[–] ang_cire 2 days ago

Tons of those are (as the site admins admit) models that are themselves infringing on copyright, and thus any license based on copyright ownership is invalid.

You can't enforce a license on a 3d model you in turn stole from a game.

[–] ffsm8 2 days ago

Just to make sure I understand you right: the argument is that

Acteur a has a no permissive copyright

Acteur b has a non-commercial copyright on a model that infringes on a's non permissive copyright

Acteur c now can freely use it commercially, because b's copyright notice is invalid as it was never in a position to grant a permissive license

The stuff you learn on HN is truly breathtaking.

Thanks for clearing that up, that opens up a lot of avenues for future developments

[–] ang_cire 2 days ago

No, it means that Actor B has no copyright at all. Copyright requires ownership, and a thief has none. So Actor A (e.g. Activision) can make a copyright complaint against Roblox, for their 3D model that Roblox now has, that Actor B was illegally hosting. Actor B can't say crap.