Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
If you copy something you are not entitled to because of copyright, it’s copyright infringement.
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
Not the same thing, and calling it theft is purely a propaganda term invented by the media industry.
It should also be noted that copyright laws usually have all sorts of exceptions for fair use such as satire, education, etc. Typically, keeping and even using a copy without permission is legally allowed under certain circumstances.
Just a word of caution. Even if you have a valid fair use claim they have to be adjudicated and the legal costs can get pricey. Worse if you’re found liable.
Check out Lawful Masses on YouTube for plenty of examples of copyright trolls using this as a bludgeon.
It’s just a fear tactic. If enough people self represented themselves individually the companies would die. You can’t draw blood from a stone… which the average consumer is basically close to. The recovery rate vs the lawsuit fees would destroy the entire legal system if people stood their ground.
Canada decided to have none of that. Downloading without keeping a copy (streaming) was basically thrown out as copyright infringement, the whole lost income idea was generally laughed at, and the final result was a maximum judgement of $500 for all non-commercial copyright infringement prior to the suit. Which basically would pay for about one hour of the plaintiff lawyer’s fees. We don’t get a lot of copyright suits like that in Canada any more.
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
There used to be an anti-piracy lobby group in Australia literally called “Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft”. I always had an issue with their name since they were really against copyright infringement, not “copyright theft” which is just a nonsense term like you said. It’s been ruled several times by courts both in Australia and in the USA that it can’t be called “theft” (e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/2013/12/02/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial/).
I like to think of it as something similar to watching a football match from the other side of the fence. People who paid the ticket, are loyal fans. People who didn’t pay, but still want to see the match, probably aren’t even part of the target audience. Some of them might be, but that’s a small number.
So, when the football company says that they’ve lost the sales of x number of tickets, they are actually saying that if those people had enough money and if they cared enough, they might have paid this amount of money.
Right, so I suppose George Lucas was stealing from all the movies that inspired his work when he made Star Wars. Or when Mel Brooks made Space Balls, as a more blatant example
Mel Brooks’s works are protected under the Fair Use provisions for satire under the DMCA. Lucas never copied anything directly, but, if pressed, much of his work is “heavily inspired” by works in the public domain and/or could be argued to be “derivative works”, also covered by Fair Use provisions in the DMCA, although any claim of copyright violation would be pretty difficult to make in the first place.
not in any legally reasonable way, and certainly not by anyone who understands how AI (or, really, LLM models) work or what art is.
If it’s not redistributed copyrighted material, it’s not theft
but that’s exactly what OpenAI did-- they used distributed, copyrighted works, used them as training data, and spit out result, some of which even contained word-for-word repetitions of the author’s source material.
AI, unlike a human, cannot create unique works of art. it can old produce an algorithmically-derived malange of its source-data recomposited in novel forms, but nothing resembling the truly unique creative process of a living human. Sadly, too many people simply lack the ability to comprehend the difference.
it can old produce an algorithmically-derived malange of its source-data recomposited in novel forms
Right, it produces derivative data. Not copyrighted material.
By itself without any safeguards, it absolutely could output copyrighted data, (albeit probably not perfectly but for copyright purposes that’s irrelevant as long as it serves as a substitute). And any algorithms that do do that should be punished, but OpenAI’s models can’t do that.
Hammers aren’t bad because they can be used for bludgeoning, and if we have a hammer that somehow detects that it’s being used for murder and then evaporates, calling it bad is even more ridiculous.
I know a large js obferscator has auto detection code, try loading dev tools in first then loading the site on the tab so it doesn’t detect the sudden viewport change
I always found these anti-right-click scripts funny since they usually don’t block Ctrl+S to save the page, Ctrl+U to view source, or Ctrl+P to print (or these days, F12 to open the browser dev tools)
My personal favorite is Ctrl+Shift+C which brings up Dev tools in selection mode, so you can click on the picture or whatever and be taken straight to its HTML code.
It also is a bit annoying that that is the keybinding, because whenever I have to copy something from the browser to the terminal, I must remind myself not to do Ctrl-shift-c as I would in the terminal.
I can take a screenshot and then have it automatically OCR the text. Hell, I can take a picture with my phone of my chicken scratch handwriting and have it OCR.
And as someone who remembers buying OCR software from OfficeMax for $40 that barely worked, that’s pretty amazing.
What are you using to OCR screenshots? I have lots of old screenshots and I’d love to OCR them and find notable things I worked on and took a screenshot of.
I have an iPhone and it just sorta does it automatically. If it thinks there’s text it will put yellow corners around it and let me copy it to my clipboard. On my Mac I can just start selecting text and it will figure it out.
All this does is infuriate actual users trying to use your site. Content thieves will just download it via a script or curl and you won’t be able to do anything about it.
there are both categories.
Some things are marginally better and incredibly expensive.
Other things, such as garden hose power snakes and these “audiophile crystals” are just pure scam.
I’d be all up for some diminishing returns but the price premium is nowhere close to adequate. For the price of an overbuilt headphone amp you can buy a soldering iron and parts for three amps that are four times as overbuilt. And include a metrology-grade DAC in all of them.
Technically, a weight on top of AV equipment’s cases will change the resonant properties of the chassis but that does not produce audible effects unless it’s on the speaker cone. The author considers this and dismisses the possibility because “rocks not heavy enough”.
Also, a sufficiently large rock will affect the performance of any Hi-Fi equipment.
Sometimes I think the whole industry of audiophile is just a bunch of baloney. Reminds of chifi IEM the KZ ZEX pro or something where people were praising for the improve sound and more drivers. Turns out only 1 driver is used and the rest are just there to justify increase in the price. It being no different than their cheaper version.
Audiophiles are 100% targeted with tons of nonsense products, mainly because sound is such a subjective thing beyond a certain level. That’s not to say all hifi products are placebo-driven, just that the industry is rife with them.
Well, my cheap Bluetooth speaker vibrates terribly and weighing it down helps. This will not help devices which already have vibration-preventing features, such as rubber feet or acoustics-aware housing design. And only some rocks will wobble depending on the base shape and point of mass.
I planned on getting my dad a sound bar for his TV on his birthday because the TV he uses, the plastic grill over the speaker vibrates something fierce and it sounds like absolute garbage any time something with any amount of bass plays. But maybe I can just glue some rocks to it 🤔
He could afford hundreds of dollars’ worth of placebo just for this single article. Either there’s an undisclosed sponsorship deal, or he has enough money to fuel all his means of self-delusion hobbies.
In my whole life I never bought digital audio or video content on vinyl, VHS, CD, DVD, Blueray. Never ever. It sounds as weird to me like paying for air to breath.
But one day I visited a live concert of a small band which I loved as a teenager. After the show I met with their drummer, gave him €200 cash and said “You know, when I was young you were cool about kids copying your music without paying. You told us if we like you music we can enjoy it. And if we can afford it, we can pay you. Back then I couldn’t. Today I can.”
And so I paid them five times as much as I saved back then by copying their music.
Don’t get scammed with audiophile rocks. I’ve done my research and found out that audiophile rock salt does the exact same thing and it is MUCH cheaper! Feel free to copy this and spread the word!
The science behind it is that it sounds crunchy because the rock salt draws out the moisture from the music. You will have to replace the salt on a regular basis though - depending on how much music you listen to.
Yeah that’s true but still, I listen to a lot of really wet and moist music and even then. For the price of one good quality audiophile rock I can have a lifetime supply of rock salt for both audio and seasoning purposes.
Urgh god damn it. Yeah I just called my contractor, he’s gonna come bust a hole in my ceiling on Tuesday morning. Salt boulder will be dropped in by Friday.
Recently I have discovered my review work (1) and show reports taken and reproduced without my permission by four websites, one of whom took the material down when asked – they should not have reproduced it in the first place. When approached they said ‘sure that is how the net works, I am helping you by doing this’. No you are not, you are only helping yourself dasklang.com (2), creating traffic to your site off the back of my work not your own. How would you like it if I reproduced the design of your products ? Then told you my doing so was helping you. You wouldn’t.
I was going to let this go, but why should I? I have struggled personally to try and put some content on my site, battled reviwers burn out and other issues. Content that in many cases I have paid for out of my pocket to write about, not items loaned by manufacturers or distributors, but products I had bought, sometimes simply to write about them. However even if I had not parted with my money, my time and effort is worth something surely? Worthy of respect that I would at the very least be offered a chance to give my permission as to how my work is used, and where. None of these websites asked, they took what wasn’t theirs to use, to put content on their sites.
The websites that still have my material up without permission are isecope.com, headgames online and technocratsblog.com, all three I suspect are linked.
As they are watching this site maybe after being named and shamed they will remove the material. I doubt it, I guess I will have to go after them with DMCA’s and report to their web-hosts.
@[email protected] did knowingly an intentionally expose a minor to pornography. Mandatory Sex offender registration. /s
Mildly infuriating cause those charges did happen. Charge the trafficked minor with a felony to target the traffickers. (My memory might be faulty on the event)
Isn’t it wild that kids can be both perpetrators and victims of the same crime? Like if a teen takes sexually explicit video of themselves and sends it to someone, they can be arrested, tried, and convicted or producing and disseminating child pornography.
I don’t think that it’s christian nationalism in this case. The state definitely has a strong, compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children (and hopefully of adults as well). I think that it’s more a case that it’s really hard to figure out how to deal with material that is 99% exploitative, and 1% made willingly by kids, without them being coerced by adults.
Because–and here’s where it gets really uncomfortable for most people–kids are also sexual. They may be more or less aware and interested in sex, and may not understand the mechanics, but that shit is baked into your biology. Gay kids know they’re gay at a very young age, and I knew I was straight–although I had no idea what ‘straight’ and ‘gay’ even meant by the time I was 7 (!!!). And this was well before the internet.
1% made willingly by kids, without them being coerced by adults
the stickiest part of the wicket here is that if you carve out an exception for kids taking pictures of themselves, even if you make it still illegal but make the consequences less about punishment, millions of hideous fuckers will immediately begin probing for a way to manipulate kids into doing it themselves in a manner that doesn’t technically break the law.
It was/is extremely easy to bypass. All you have to do is disable Javascript, or what 13-year-old me used to back in the day was spam the right-click button and the menu would pop up before the script could stop you.
Zero empathy. There are tons of reasons to right click that have nothing to do with copying, plus he’s a complete moron to think that there’s any way to prevent someone from saving something that’s already downloaded on their computer.
lol, copying isn’t theft. You already had to download a copy just to view it. That’s how websites work.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
If you copy something you are not entitled to because of copyright, it’s copyright infringement.
With theft the originally owner loses what is stolen, with copyright infringement the owner only loses the license fee for 1 copy.
Not the same thing, and calling it theft is purely a propaganda term invented by the media industry.
It should also be noted that copyright laws usually have all sorts of exceptions for fair use such as satire, education, etc. Typically, keeping and even using a copy without permission is legally allowed under certain circumstances.
Just a word of caution. Even if you have a valid fair use claim they have to be adjudicated and the legal costs can get pricey. Worse if you’re found liable.
Check out Lawful Masses on YouTube for plenty of examples of copyright trolls using this as a bludgeon.
It’s just a fear tactic. If enough people self represented themselves individually the companies would die. You can’t draw blood from a stone… which the average consumer is basically close to. The recovery rate vs the lawsuit fees would destroy the entire legal system if people stood their ground.
Canada decided to have none of that. Downloading without keeping a copy (streaming) was basically thrown out as copyright infringement, the whole lost income idea was generally laughed at, and the final result was a maximum judgement of $500 for all non-commercial copyright infringement prior to the suit. Which basically would pay for about one hour of the plaintiff lawyer’s fees. We don’t get a lot of copyright suits like that in Canada any more.
There used to be an anti-piracy lobby group in Australia literally called “Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft”. I always had an issue with their name since they were really against copyright infringement, not “copyright theft” which is just a nonsense term like you said. It’s been ruled several times by courts both in Australia and in the USA that it can’t be called “theft” (e.g. https://www.techdirt.com/2013/12/02/surprise-mpaa-told-it-cant-use-terms-piracy-theft-stealing-during-hotfile-trial/).
I like to think of it as something similar to watching a football match from the other side of the fence. People who paid the ticket, are loyal fans. People who didn’t pay, but still want to see the match, probably aren’t even part of the target audience. Some of them might be, but that’s a small number.
So, when the football company says that they’ve lost the sales of x number of tickets, they are actually saying that if those people had enough money and if they cared enough, they might have paid this amount of money.
Not a bad analogy. 👍
“Tools” -> “Page info” -> “Media” menu on Firefox - you can even see and save the images that the browser already downloaded.
or save page to download all loaded image assets from a page into a nice folder
Or there are extensions if you are lazy.
Yeah was going to recommend this it usually works pretty well
Try telling that to the AI hysterics
It’s different when you earn profit from another person’s work.
Right, so I suppose George Lucas was stealing from all the movies that inspired his work when he made Star Wars. Or when Mel Brooks made Space Balls, as a more blatant example
Mel Brooks’s works are protected under the Fair Use provisions for satire under the DMCA. Lucas never copied anything directly, but, if pressed, much of his work is “heavily inspired” by works in the public domain and/or could be argued to be “derivative works”, also covered by Fair Use provisions in the DMCA, although any claim of copyright violation would be pretty difficult to make in the first place.
And the same can be said about generative AI
If it’s not redistributed copyrighted material, it’s not theft
not in any legally reasonable way, and certainly not by anyone who understands how AI (or, really, LLM models) work or what art is.
but that’s exactly what OpenAI did-- they used distributed, copyrighted works, used them as training data, and spit out result, some of which even contained word-for-word repetitions of the author’s source material.
AI, unlike a human, cannot create unique works of art. it can old produce an algorithmically-derived malange of its source-data recomposited in novel forms, but nothing resembling the truly unique creative process of a living human. Sadly, too many people simply lack the ability to comprehend the difference.
Right, it produces derivative data. Not copyrighted material.
By itself without any safeguards, it absolutely could output copyrighted data, (albeit probably not perfectly but for copyright purposes that’s irrelevant as long as it serves as a substitute). And any algorithms that do do that should be punished, but OpenAI’s models can’t do that.
Hammers aren’t bad because they can be used for bludgeoning, and if we have a hammer that somehow detects that it’s being used for murder and then evaporates, calling it bad is even more ridiculous.
ah, yes, the right click menu
Funny because Inspect offers all the stealing tools
It is awesome but some websites seem to detect when Dev Tools get brought up, can you explain this?
https://tube.tchncs.de/w/cJ18YQATnJK3dnc5xuBRM7 (details in desc)
Interesting, and clever
I know a large js obferscator has auto detection code, try loading dev tools in first then loading the site on the tab so it doesn’t detect the sudden viewport change
I did consider this and accounted for it, that’s part of the details in desc you should have read
This is why Apple pushed so hard for 1-button mice
A fellow Ultron user in the wild, #1 hacker and cyber-thief browser on the web. How’s your Adobe Reader?
Are you sure? It looks just like Firefox to me
It is
Nice reference
Mobile convergence has tried to hard to kill this, but we’re not having it. Cut, copy, paste, save 4 lyfe!
please for the love of god someone make this a real thing.
*an
You shouldn’t touch them either. Minimum safe distance: 4 m.
you focus on that popup and ignore all the crank shit that is on this page
statements dreamed of by the utterly deranged
Right click?? Why did we ever need a second or third or seventeenth button anyway?
They have played us for absolute fools
a single button makes the clicks sound warmer.
That mouse worked just fine for Crystal Quest! Kids these days.
It got me through so many rounds of Zany Golf!
Oh my god I loved Crystal Quest. I thought everyone forgot about it
There are dozens of us who had no idea we heard an orgasm at the end of every wave!
Have some nostalgia:
https://youtu.be/bR1sfqhJMdE?si=L6OJ1uG7-I1GEzUv
A piece of granite placed on the turntable would change how his records sound, but not necessarily in a good way.
Depending on the artist of course.
Does it only work for rock albums?
I’ll see myself out.
Hard rock 🤘
You know, I considered that pun, but decided it was too obvious - I shouldn’t have taken it for granite.
The audiophile reality distortion field in effect again.
I wish the intended had more deranged shit like this or the time cube
Green Ink
deleted by creator
I always found these anti-right-click scripts funny since they usually don’t block Ctrl+S to save the page, Ctrl+U to view source, or Ctrl+P to print (or these days, F12 to open the browser dev tools)
My personal favorite is
Ctrl+Shift+Cwhich brings up Dev tools in selection mode, so you can click on the picture or whatever and be taken straight to its HTML code.Ooooh as a developer I am very grateful for this tip
It also is a bit annoying that that is the keybinding, because whenever I have to copy something from the browser to the terminal, I must remind myself not to do Ctrl-shift-c as I would in the terminal.
LOL, that’s fair. That’s messed with me before too.
Shift + right-click will override all this BS in Firefox.
JavaScript is no match for
wget -r.But then you find that website used JavaScript to calculate URLs to the actual website content for which wget is no match.
Or it’s just otherwise JavaScript-dependent website. Wget can’t parse that.
I just turn off JavaScript and then right click works again.
I can take a screenshot and then have it automatically OCR the text. Hell, I can take a picture with my phone of my chicken scratch handwriting and have it OCR.
And as someone who remembers buying OCR software from OfficeMax for $40 that barely worked, that’s pretty amazing.
What are you using to OCR screenshots? I have lots of old screenshots and I’d love to OCR them and find notable things I worked on and took a screenshot of.
Tesseract is one tool that can do it.
Thanks for the link!
I have an iPhone and it just sorta does it automatically. If it thinks there’s text it will put yellow corners around it and let me copy it to my clipboard. On my Mac I can just start selecting text and it will figure it out.
Or reader mode or page info or… well, anything. All it does is annoy the user when tripped.
And good old screen sniping tools
All this does is infuriate actual users trying to use your site. Content thieves will just download it via a script or curl and you won’t be able to do anything about it.
Also in some browsers (I know Gecko-based ones at least), you can override JavaScript by holding shift while you right-click.
Huh, didn’t know that! Thanks, super useful
There is a 100% chance this warning correlates with the actual content on this site being hot garbage
it is
Audiophile equipment is just magic crystal bullshit for pseudointellectuals.
To an extent yes but it’s essentially just extreme deminishing returns
there are both categories.
Some things are marginally better and incredibly expensive.
Other things, such as garden hose power snakes and these “audiophile crystals” are just pure scam.
I’ve never even heard of audiophile crystals, I didn’t realize that was a direct reference lol
I’d be all up for some diminishing returns but the price premium is nowhere close to adequate. For the price of an overbuilt headphone amp you can buy a soldering iron and parts for three amps that are four times as overbuilt. And include a metrology-grade DAC in all of them.
And, yes, my headphone cable is oxygen-free copper. I simply chose the cheapest suitable cable I could find at Thomann, the stuff is so cheap they’re throwing it in there for diminishing returns in sales.
He should just ask for a donation. His work isn’t that valuable
Considering they think putting rocks on top of your playing equipment changes the sound, their work has negative value.
Technically, a weight on top of AV equipment’s cases will change the resonant properties of the chassis but that does not produce audible effects unless it’s on the speaker cone. The author considers this and dismisses the possibility because “rocks not heavy enough”.
Also, a sufficiently large rock will affect the performance of any Hi-Fi equipment.
Instructions unclear. Used boulder. No more sound comes out.
Worked as stated.
I think you followed the instructions perfectly.
You missed the part where if you put the rock in your ear, it will affect how it sounds.
Sometimes I think the whole industry of audiophile is just a bunch of baloney. Reminds of chifi IEM the KZ ZEX pro or something where people were praising for the improve sound and more drivers. Turns out only 1 driver is used and the rest are just there to justify increase in the price. It being no different than their cheaper version.
Audiophiles are 100% targeted with tons of nonsense products, mainly because sound is such a subjective thing beyond a certain level. That’s not to say all hifi products are placebo-driven, just that the industry is rife with them.
That’s not untrue though… Putting rocks on your sound system could make the rocks vibrate against it and sound like utter shit.
Well, my cheap Bluetooth speaker vibrates terribly and weighing it down helps. This will not help devices which already have vibration-preventing features, such as rubber feet or acoustics-aware housing design. And only some rocks will wobble depending on the base shape and point of mass.
I planned on getting my dad a sound bar for his TV on his birthday because the TV he uses, the plastic grill over the speaker vibrates something fierce and it sounds like absolute garbage any time something with any amount of bass plays. But maybe I can just glue some rocks to it 🤔
When I hear “glue rocks to it”, I feel the urge to post the steering wheel picture. Because that one lives in my head rent free.
It’s only tangentially relevant, but still.
Especially if you use coprolite.
Someone already plagiarized from them, so clearly it must be
http://www.adventuresinhifiaudio.com/16/04/2019/copyright-infringement-outing-isecope-com-and-technocratsblog-com/
He could afford hundreds of dollars’ worth of placebo just for this single article. Either there’s an undisclosed sponsorship deal, or he has enough money to fuel all his
means of self-delusionhobbies.In my whole life I never bought digital audio or video content on vinyl, VHS, CD, DVD, Blueray. Never ever. It sounds as weird to me like paying for air to breath.
But one day I visited a live concert of a small band which I loved as a teenager. After the show I met with their drummer, gave him €200 cash and said “You know, when I was young you were cool about kids copying your music without paying. You told us if we like you music we can enjoy it. And if we can afford it, we can pay you. Back then I couldn’t. Today I can.”
And so I paid them five times as much as I saved back then by copying their music.
You are a very good person.
This is utterly irrelevant to people copying multi-million sales dickshits like Metallica.
I bet Lars would have declined the money and ask for your info then sued.
Don’t get scammed with audiophile rocks. I’ve done my research and found out that audiophile rock salt does the exact same thing and it is MUCH cheaper! Feel free to copy this and spread the word!
Are you sure it isn’t the kitty sticker?
… Jesus fucking christ. My research is invalid. I’m going to have to start all over again. 🤬
Dang that sounds so good I can hear it in the image.
Right?? It’s crunchy! That’s what all audiophiles want. Crunchiness.
The science behind it is that it sounds crunchy because the rock salt draws out the moisture from the music. You will have to replace the salt on a regular basis though - depending on how much music you listen to.
Yeah that’s true but still, I listen to a lot of really wet and moist music and even then. For the price of one good quality audiophile rock I can have a lifetime supply of rock salt for both audio and seasoning purposes.
You won’t come after me if I right click? Legally, I mean.
Sound like entrapment tbh
No no, I’m not like that, I promise. I understand your skepticism. It saddens me that this is where we’re at today but I understand.
casually flexing stax lol
😉 😜
Great, thank you for your research but do you have any audiophile jazz salt?
Wait, there’s jazz salt???
You’re doing it wrong. You need to match the type and size of the rock to your headphone impedance, this is common knowledge man
I would need a boulder yo. My headphones have an impedence of 170,000 ohms. This will have to do.
The sacrifices one must make for the best audio quality
Urgh god damn it. Yeah I just called my contractor, he’s gonna come bust a hole in my ceiling on Tuesday morning. Salt boulder will be dropped in by Friday.
How much can I buy them from you for
Sorry I can’t sell any at all. Not even a gram. I have exactly enough for myself, nothing to spare.
Smh worst entrepreneur ever
Urgh I know but what’s the point in carrying more. I can’t compete with Big Rock Salt. Ever since they legalized it I barely get any customers.
Probably the source of their problem:
That used to be fairly common 10-15 years ago.
Huh. Wonder why they stopped the warnings if it was so effective.
Every porn site: “Are you over 18 years of age”
13 year old me: “Yes”
@[email protected] did knowingly an intentionally expose a minor to pornography. Mandatory Sex offender registration. /s
Mildly infuriating cause those charges did happen. Charge the trafficked minor with a felony to target the traffickers. (My memory might be faulty on the event)
Isn’t it wild that kids can be both perpetrators and victims of the same crime? Like if a teen takes sexually explicit video of themselves and sends it to someone, they can be arrested, tried, and convicted or producing and disseminating child pornography.
It’s not wild. Christian Fascists have always taken the stance: “the slaves will never rebel, and if they do we hit them with a big hammer”.
I don’t think that it’s christian nationalism in this case. The state definitely has a strong, compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children (and hopefully of adults as well). I think that it’s more a case that it’s really hard to figure out how to deal with material that is 99% exploitative, and 1% made willingly by kids, without them being coerced by adults.
Because–and here’s where it gets really uncomfortable for most people–kids are also sexual. They may be more or less aware and interested in sex, and may not understand the mechanics, but that shit is baked into your biology. Gay kids know they’re gay at a very young age, and I knew I was straight–although I had no idea what ‘straight’ and ‘gay’ even meant by the time I was 7 (!!!). And this was well before the internet.
the stickiest part of the wicket here is that if you carve out an exception for kids taking pictures of themselves, even if you make it still illegal but make the consequences less about punishment, millions of hideous fuckers will immediately begin probing for a way to manipulate kids into doing it themselves in a manner that doesn’t technically break the law.
It’s more like “we’ll continuously hit them with a big hammer to prevent any potential rebellion”
It’s just an alert() function thrown at you. Whatever it says, it is not enforceable as it is not a contract. But It’s annoying
It’s a bootstrap modal, not an alert. In Firefox you can just hold shift when right clicking to bypass the js events and show the menu anyway.
It was/is extremely easy to bypass. All you have to do is disable Javascript, or what 13-year-old me used to back in the day was spam the right-click button and the menu would pop up before the script could stop you.
I was about to give some empathy for the dude but their articles are trash and they would be lucky if we stole them.
Zero empathy. There are tons of reasons to right click that have nothing to do with copying, plus he’s a complete moron to think that there’s any way to prevent someone from saving something that’s already downloaded on their computer.
deleted by creator
Yeah if you disable JavaScript with uBlock Origin everything works fine haha