A download is a copy of a work. So, downloading a movie is making a copy of a work that you are not a copyright holder of - in other words, either you or the site you are downloading from are infringing on the copyright holder's exclusive right to create copies of their work. You could claim there is some fair use exemption for this case, or you can have an alternative way of authorizing copies and paying for them like Switzerland does, but there is no doubt in any legal system that downloading is the same kind of action as copying a book at a print shop.
I love how enthusiastic this post is while being wrong.
Making a copy of a thing does not violate copyright (eg you can photocopy a book that you possess even temporarily). Sharing a copy that you made can violate copyright.
It is like mixing up “it’s illegal to poison somebody with bleach” and “it’s illegal to own bleach”. The action you take makes a big difference
Also, as an aside, when you view a legitimately-purchased and downloaded video file that you have license to watch, the video player you use makes a copy from the disk to memory.
If I own a license to listen to Metallica - Enter Sandman.m4a that I bought on iTunes and in the download folder I screw up and I make
Metallica - Enter Sandman(1).m4a
Metallica - Enter Sandman(2).m4a
Metallica - Enter Sandman(3).m4a
How much money do I owe Lars Ulrich for doing that based on The Law of The Earth Everywhere But Switzerland?
> I love how enthusiastic this post is while being wrong.
This is a very funny thing to say given that post is entirely correct, while you are wrong.
> Making a copy of a thing does not violate copyright
Yes it does, unless it's permitted under a designated copyright exemption by local law. For instance, you mention that the video player makes a copy from disk to memory, well that is explicitly permitted by Article 5(1) of the Copyright Directive 2001 in the EU as a use that is "temporary, transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process", as otherwise it would be illegal as by default, any action to copy is a breach of copyright. That's literally where the word comes from.
> If I own a license to listen to Metallica - Enter Sandman.m4a that I bought on iTunes and in the download folder I screw up and I make
> Metallica - Enter Sandman(1).m4a
> Metallica - Enter Sandman(2).m4a
> Metallica - Enter Sandman(3).m4a
In legal terms you do indeed owe him something, yes. It would probably be covered under the private copy exemptions in some EU territories, but only on the basis that blank media is taxed to pay rightsholders a royalty for these actions under the relevant collective management associations.
You're mixing up several things, all of which actually boil down to the fair use exceptions I was mentioning.
Making copies of a book you legally own for personal use is an established fair use exception to copyright. However, making copies of a book that you borrowed from a library would be copyright infringement. Similarly, lending the copies you've made of a book to friends would technically void the fair use exception for your copies.
The copy that a playback device has to make of a copyrighted audio/video file for its basic functioning is typically mentioned explicitly in the license you buy, thus being an authorized copy for a specific purpose. If you make several copies of a file on your own system for personal use, then again you are likely within fair use exemptions, similar to copying a book case - though this is often a bit more complicated legally by the fact that you don't own a copy but a license to use the work in various ways, and some companies' licenses can theoretically prohibit even archival copies, which in turn may or may not be legal in various jurisdictions.
But in no jurisdiction is it legal to, for example, go with a portable photocopy machine into a bookstore and make copies of books you find in there, even if they are only for personal use: you first have to legally acquire an authorized copy from the rights holder. All other exemptions apply to what you do with that legally obtained copy.
This even means that you don't have any rights to use a fraudulent copy of a work, even if you legitimately believed you were obtaining a legal copy. For example, say a library legally bought a book from a shady bookstore that, unbeknownst to them, was selling counterfeit copies of a book. If the copyright holder finds out, they can legally force the library to pay them to continue offering this book, or to destroy it otherwise, along with any archival copies that they had made of this book. The library can of course seek to obtain reparations from the store that sold them the illegal copy, but they can't refuse to pay the legal copyright holder.
The silicon valley/startups/VC tribe, and they favour Twitter because 1. that's what their friends use and 2. they like Elon Musk, they want to be like him.
Many OpenAI employees expressed their support for Sam at some point also on Twitter. Microsoft CEO (based in Redmond) tweeted quite a lot. Tech media reporters like Emily Chang and Kara Swisher also participated. The last one is quite critical of Twitter and I am not sure they all like Musk that much.
Are they all in the same “tribe”? Maybe you should enlarge the definition?
How about us all IT people who watched the drama unfolding on Twitter while our friend are using FB and Insta, we are far from SV and have mixed feelings about Elon Musk while never in a million years wanting to be like him? Also same “tribe”?
Aforementioned comment maker here. My justification is that, per my understanding of the HN guidelines, it's not that interesting to discuss whether folks read the article completely or not.
This is why I phrased it that way - I think it's an important nugget of information but many folks have limited time to read, or were turned off by the style, and may have not scrolled all the way to the footer to see that.
I thought that comment might help more discussion of bloggery by hand waving the controversial style as an imperfect homage to something intentionally crude.
To that end I also figured there was potential discussion in how OP article doesn't quite hit the same poetic cadence as motherfuckingwebsite.
They can do the old-fashioned thing: order them for you. It may cost a bit more, but it's like in-store delivery (which is fine, if you're not too remote). It's too little, too late for B&N for this, but it can help smaller bookshops. And you'll get to know the personnel or the owner a bit better when you do.
There have been huge improvements since the first petrol engine, and huge improvements in the last 20 years as well. Petrol engines are some of the most studied and meticulously engineered things ever created.
Yes, that is the definition (I am Swedish and I've endured many people asking me my "colour".) It's absurd, isn't it? Especially using so many emotive words.
