Slashdot Mirror
Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons (all3dp.com)
He Who Has No Name writes: A little over a week ago, Thingiverse user Loubie posted Sad Face! to Thingiverse, protesting the use — without permission — of their designs and those of others by JustPrint3D, an Ebay seller marketing physical prints of the designs in question (over 2,000 by some counts). Despite a terse and legally shaky denial of any wrongdoing by JustPrint3D, there are obviously multiple violations of various iterations of the Creative Commons licenses (several forms of the CC license are options for Thingiverse uploaders to assign to their Things when uploading, and one is the default). Now MakerBot itself is wading into the uproar firmly on the side of its users, and has released a statement mentioning potential legal action.
Their Ebay store is empty.
What's the problem? Did the author pick wrong license by mistake — and will they apologize to the folks now harmed by eBay's overreaction?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Scraping" refers to "copying the content off of some website". It is adapted from the older term "screen scraping", which is copying the data from someone else's visual presentation of this data. This usually implies that you don't have access to the underlying data in a more convenient form (such as files or a database or an API), so you have to reconstruct it from some source that either wasn't intended to promote the efficient transfer of the data or was actually designed to make that transfer as difficult as possible, for IP reasons.
Ebay only takes action against illegal things when there is bad press.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
This was also covered about a week ago on HackADay: http://hackaday.com/2016/02/22... "Most of the uploaded CAD models on Thingiverse are done under the Creative Commons license, which is pretty clear in its assertion that anyone can profit from the work. This would seem to put the eBay store owner in the clear for selling the work, but it should be noted that he’s not properly attributing the work to the original creator. " The only part that he's violating is that there's no attribution.
Because the author/editor assumed on site that bills itself as "News for Nerds" that most users would be able to understand the lingo - and if not could use a search engine to find the answer.
IMO they are different things. Copying might mean that an employee of the shop downloaded designs from thingiverse and listed them for sale on ebay. Steals or infringes is pretty vague in terms of is actually happening.
It seems reasonable for the author to assume that the audience of this site knows what scraping is, and it is a more precise word for what happened than copying, stealing or infringing. Scraping implies a scripted, automated effort with little human intervention past the point of building the script. There is no selection in terms of, 'hey, this looks neat - I'm going to sell those'; it is a complete replication of a catalogue without intervention.
Actual: Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons
Q? who sells in violation? Ebay or Thingiverse...
Correct: Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Who Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons
The other one yesterday:
Actual: Mercedes-Benz Swaps Robots For People On Assembly Lines
Q? Which way is it going people out or robots out
Correct: Mercedes-Benz Removes Robots For People On Assembly Lines
Or is this a new strategy Huffinghtonpost style - creating questions in headlines to make people look at content - new in the beginning but now sucks overall.
Anti-trust laws in America prohibit a manufacturer or distributor from fixing prices.
Anti-trust laws do not prevent the copyright owner from fixing prices, however, and they can.
Occasionally copyright owners provide a distribution agreement where 99% or 100% of all profits go to the copyright owner, and the merchant/distributor is only allowed to resell according to the author's policies.
Also, copyright owners occasionally provide gratis copies for special purposes --- for example, pre-release reviews or screeners. Just because there is no fee, does not mean the movie theaters that received these exclusive media can legally make and distribute copies.
Hate to say this but it's true. Many, I dare say most, people aren't actually interested in learning. They're not interested in constructive dialogue. They're not interested in changing their minds when presented with new information. They aren't interested in honest debate. They're not interested in accepting that they're wrong and adjusting their beliefs accordingly. They're sure as hell not interested in improving themselves because improving themselves involves both work and admission that they're less than perfect.
And, more on topic, scraping is a more specific type of copying. Being specific is a good thing. It means less confusion for those who actually understand the issues. Those who don't understand the issues probably don't have opinions of any value and can be discounted or ignored. Why they feel compelled, or perhaps entitled, to have a valued opinion is probably also a matter of ego - akin to needing to admin that they're not perfect in order to be willing to learn.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."