• Daxtron2@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Also in some browsers (I know Gecko-based ones at least), you can override JavaScript by holding shift while you right-click.

  • garyyo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    looks like its just setting some events, these two lines should clear the anti-select and the anti-right click respectively if pasted into the debug console:

    document.body.onselectstart = undefined
    document.oncontextmenu = undefined
    
  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    you focus on that popup and ignore all the crank shit that is on this page

    yes a piece of granite (?) with $60 pricetag put on my amplifier COMPLETELY changes how my vinyls sound like

    statements dreamed of by the utterly deranged

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    lol, copying isn’t theft. You already had to download a copy just to view it. That’s how websites work.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.