
How Artists on Twitter Tricked T-Shirt Stores to Admit Their Automated Art Theft - processing
https://waxy.org/2019/12/how-artists-on-twitter-tricked-spammy-t-shirt-stores-into-admitting-their-automated-art-theft/
======
DATACOMMANDER
“ For me, this all raises two questions:

Who’s responsible for this infringement?”

Both the company that wrote the algorithm that submitted the request and the
company that responded by creating a listing.

“What responsibility do print-on-demand providers have to prevent infringement
on their platforms?”

All of it. The company that submitted the request also has all of the
responsibility. It doesn’t have to be split between them. They are both 100%
responsible.

(Disclaimer: IANAL)

------
planetzero
So after all of the discussion here on HN with people chiming in and
supporting music, movie, and software piracy.

I'm supposed to give two shits about artists getting ripped off for the same
thing? Please. What ever happened to information wants to be free?

~~~
DATACOMMANDER
_Selling_ copies of an artist’s work without their consent is categorically
different from _making_ copies for your own personal enjoyment.

~~~
planetzero
It's in the same category of infringing copyright. You just don't like the
fact that they are making money.

~~~
DATACOMMANDER
No, it’s really not.

~~~
planetzero
yes, it really is.

~~~
DATACOMMANDER
It isn’t though. If you download someone’s work for your own enjoyment, you
can plausibly argue that if you’d had to pay, you wouldn’t have been
interested, so there’s no money that you’re taking from them. When you
illegally sell someone’s work, there is necessarily money that should go to
the artist but doesn’t.

