211–220 of 317 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People can still have local copies Yes, but under current copyright laws they are not allowed to distribute them without your consent.
That's not the point. The OP mentioned he wanted to make sure nobody can read it anymore. Private copies prevent that scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When I delete an article from my blog It's not yours anymore once it's public. It's like saying "when I do something crazy in public I want to be able to make everyone forget about it later on". That's not how things are supposed to work. > I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore People can still have local copies so you have absolutely NO CONTROL.
Except they do in Europe under the 'right to be forgotten'.
Hmm, all they got to do is have a dynamic robots.txt that forbids wayback from the deleted articles, and they'll remove the workaround even. yes?
Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.
The problem is, it's getting harder every day to find DRM-free content. For audio, CDs are getting out of fashion, and piracy channels lack the seeders because everybody is on Spotify.
I went from buying all my music (physical and digital copies), and sometimes had to remove DRM from the digital copies, to stopping that and just using Spotify.
I'm slowly planning to stop paying for Spotify, but it would be very expensive to buy all the music I listen to. I think this will lead to at least 2 things (that used to be true, for me). 1) I'll listen to more local/new music that I can buy from BandCamp, etc. and 2) I'll have higher value to the music I do listen to, because I'm not as worried about glutting myself on a million new bands through Spotify. I'm okay with these 2 things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If the author changes his views, it wouldn't be acceptable for someone else to print new copies of the book. When the author burns their own book and forbids new ones from being made is the only time that it's acceptable to print new copies. Need I remind you of the purpose of copyright? >To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to…
I don't understand your point. "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right" means others cannot print copies of your books.
The author's exclusive rights are only intended to be temporary. Once they're no longer secured, the work can be used by anyone for any purpose.
Hmm, all they got to do is have a dynamic robots.txt that forbids wayback from the deleted articles, and they'll remove the workaround even. yes?
Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.
The problem is, it's getting harder every day to find DRM-free content. For audio, CDs are getting out of fashion, and piracy channels lack the seeders because everybody is on Spotify.
I think the most interesting part is the lack of discussion.
Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.
The problem is, it's getting harder every day to find DRM-free content. For audio, CDs are getting out of fashion, and piracy channels lack the seeders because everybody is on Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, it's getting harder every day to find DRM-free content. For audio, CDs are getting out of fashion, and piracy channels lack the seeders because everybody is on Spotify.
Yup, it's becoming a sad state to be able to own things and not be dependent upon the whims of others. I went from buying all my music (physical and digital copies), and sometimes had to remove DRM from the digital copies, to stopping that and just using Spotify. I'm slowly planning to stop paying for Spotify, but it would be very expensive to buy all the music I listen to. I think this will lead to at least 2 things…
parec | sox -t raw -r 44100 -Lb 16 -c 2 -e signed-integer - -t wav raw.wav
I just wish someone would develop a fully automated workflow for converting playlists to audio files.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When I delete an article from my blog It's not yours anymore once it's public. It's like saying "when I do something crazy in public I want to be able to make everyone forget about it later on". That's not how things are supposed to work. > I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore People can still have local copies so you have absolutely NO CONTROL.
Except they do in Europe under the 'right to be forgotten'.
It's not because they say it exists that it makes it valid in practice.