You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: @steemcleaners caught using bots to access paid content illegally? 🤔🤔🤔
The issue is not just a matter of failing to provide attribution.. The issue is that you have NO right to use the photo in the first place. That is left of another person's property.
@steemcleaners was right to ding you for it. I'm rather curious how they managed to find it behind a paywall, but, if they were to tell you then you'd be able to steal more content. That is not a good plan.
For all you know, one of the volunteers has an account and it was your bad luck day.
@shadowspub if the content is on a public forum, giving attribution is going according to CC best practices and news and other media organizations do this ALL THE TIME. You must not be familiar with CC and I suggest you read it. Unless the rights to the content are specified, which they weren't, attribution is THE best practice.
What I did was legal. The accessing of paid content behind a paywall, without paying, by @steemcleaners is not legal. Thus @steemcleaners broke the law to provide evidence against a lesser offense. I guess my point isn't comprehensible by lesser minds who pay no attention to the law. Stop using left logic. Your point is invalid.
Actually, the rights do not have to be specified. If I create content, the copyright is mine and you using it with or without attribution is theft.
You have zero proof of how @steemcleaners accessed the image. As I stated, for all you know, one of the volunteers could have had an account.
So, einstein, you stole someone's property and used it without their permission. You are accusing others of your crime with zero proof.
Actually, you are wrong.
The content in question that was posted by me was from public domain and unattributed because no attribution was found publically.
By going behind a paywall illegally, they THEMSELVES broke copyright law by accessing copyright material behind a paywall and without paying for it. Thus, they broke copyright law to try and prove that the content was copyright.
This is the equivalent of illegally spying on someone to prove they broke the law. They are not an authority of any type and no one from the platform gave them permission to do this.
They elected themselves as "policers" then accessed a platform illegally to use stolen data to prove their case. Smh, not too bright!