zlacker

>>rand0m+(OP)
I think this title is overstated. It seems like Brave is trying to do the right thing here vs other companies that don't even make the attempt. (Also, crawling as a service has been a thing for a while.)

>>throwa+ee
> It seems like Brave is trying to do the right thing here vs other companies that don't even make the attempt

I feel like I'm missing something. What the article claims they're doing is:

1. Misrepresenting what rights they have, and selling access to those rights.

2. Stealth-crawling the web, hiding from the webmasters just how much Brave is crawling their site, and making it impossible to block just their crawler.

How is either of these the right thing? I mean, for somebody besides Brave. What "attempt" are they making that other companies aren't?

>>jsnell+yh
Is there something wrong with accessing information that someone has posted for public access?

>>woah+ci
> Is there something wrong with accessing information that someone has posted for public access?

The Wikipedia example is glaring. They’re scraping content, stripping attribution and reselling it with a right to lock it down in a way that is not allowed by the original license.

Brave is laundering copyleft content while lying to their customers by selling a license they can’t give. If you’d like, you can sidestep the morality of copyright entirely and focus on the plagiarism and fraud.