[deleted]
Just say it’s for AI and you’ll have scores of people here defending you
[deleted]
Submitted 1 month ago by AsudoxDev@programming.dev to nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
Comments
dhork@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
This is what brought the pirate bay guys in jail, why the scihub girl is seen as a criminal by the US, and what caused reddit founder Aaron Schwarz suicide
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 month ago
You can't license other people's work. And I'd say you're doing everyone a disservice if you attach some wrong license to copyrighted material. Someone might believe you, use it under those conditions and get sued. Please don't do that. The correct way to re-distribute copyrighted material is either ask for a license and attach what they gave you, verbatim. Or plainly say it's not shared legally, or don't attanch any license. Don't say it's copyrighted and illegal to share, but also don't say anything that isn't correct, just put the files somewhere.
AsudoxDev@programming.dev 1 month ago
My bad, the title sounds wrong.
I am currently planning on using ODbL with DbCL. When used together, the users of the database must comply with the licenses of the copyrighted material in the database. So it isn’t exactly relicensing the content.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 1 month ago
I still don't get what you're trying to do. So your users contribute some text, pictures or measurements they did on their own? You can make them license that stuff to you and everyone, yes. But they can't upload some Harry potter books, pictures they downloaded, or whatever we call "copyrighted content". Adding that to the database will make it non-shareable. And you can't attach a license then. You'd have to write some terms of service and everyone needs to agree not to insert material into the database they didn't create themselves or got a license to redistribute. And they'd need to grant you a license automatically in that terms if service.
yoevli@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You would need to have the right to redistribute the copyrighted material, which is sounds like you don’t.
DmMacniel@feddit.org 1 month ago
by sharing you are copying that copyright material, and you are not the rights holder, are you? So no, you are not allowed to do that.
jeffhykin@lemm.ee 1 month ago
No
Grimy@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Depends how you got it and what format it’s in. You would have to give more info but generally, public facing is fine. If you need an account to access the data, it’s probably not okay to share it.
That being said, if you look at kaggle, there’s a bunch of stuff on there that you wouldn’t expect. You can kind of just upload it and hope for the best.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
You can kind of just upload it and hope for the best.
Oh yeah. That’s great advice. That never goes wrong!
Oh wait. It’s not.
bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
public facing is fine
Not exactly, if it is something unintentionally public facing, that can get you charged with access a computer without authorization under the the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This happened in this case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse_Security#AT&T/iPad_e…
sending a HTTP request with a valid ICC-ID embedded inside it to the AT&T website, the website would reveal the email address associated with that ICC-ID.
On November 20, 2012, Auernheimer was found guilty of one count of identity fraud and one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization
More information: www.wired.com/…/hacking-choice-and-disclosure/
AsudoxDev@programming.dev 1 month ago
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Why would you be allowed to share copyrighted works without a license from the rights holder?
AsudoxDev@programming.dev 1 month ago
Isn’t it fair use? No commercial usage.
vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Fair use has enumerated criteria. Do you meet them?
AnAmericanPotato@programming.dev 1 month ago
30 years ago, maybe. Post-Napster, not relevant. Most online piracy is non-commercial now, and it’s still illegal across most of the world.