How Artists on Twitter Tricked T-Shirt Stores to Admit Their Automated Art Theft

waxy.org

5 points·processing··7 comments

“ 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)

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?

Selling copies of an artist’s work without their consent is categorically different from making copies for your own personal enjoyment.

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

No, it’s really not.

yes, it really is.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com