My recollection was that they reached a settlement, but I don't know for how much. https://abbasmedialaw.com/posts/copyright-netflix-reaches-se... I found this chart interesting, and unexpectedly complicated: https://www.belmont.edu/legal/pdf/Public-Domain-Chart.pdf Based on that I think a heuristic of 100 years is broadly correct.
No, it’s not broadly correct, because “when does copyright expire” has no relevance to “setting back the concept of human knowledge”.
Human knowledge remains entirely unaffected by this ruling.
Initially I'm enraged against the publishers, the judge and the system in general as many of you, but they are not the issue, while I can't talk on behalf of IA, I don't see this as a fight against the publishers, but a fight against broken business models flourishing because and protected by broken laws meant to protect earlier broken business models The current law is broken, we know that, but most of us don't gras…
What actions can Americans possibly take given the captured two party system and drawing back of voting rights? Not to mention the wildly unrepresentative government, wherein for example more people can vote for Trump in California than Texas in 2020 yet each of those person's votes are functionally meaningless, or, republicans can fail for over two decades to win a popular vote and still elect three presidents in th…
Entirely open (at best) question, which no smug hacker news commenter is going to answer. What does one do?
(My current longshot hope? Digital democracy, on the backs of open source production economies running on the latest AI for highly-accessible/affordable data processing / labor. If we just start making online group decisions and scale it up, that's a power bloc that can run its own parties and strongarm existing gov processes - assuming the network even wants to interact with them... )
The employees toil to create amazing stuff and receive a pittance compared to what it's worth. Most of the profit goes to execs who have had no hand in creating anything of value.
start a company why don't you, being an exec sounds simple enough
None of my comment suggests that it's easy. And more to the point, being hard doesn't mean that execs do good in the world.
The employees toil to create amazing stuff and receive a pittance compared to what it's worth. Most of the profit goes to execs who have had no hand in creating anything of value.
[flagged]
None of my comment suggests communism. Plus, your comment doesn't seem to add anything meaningful to the conversation as best as I can tell.
Intellectual property is an unnatural, made up construct that will one day be seen as ridiculous as absolute monarchy is today. If we are going to allow it and penalize people who are doing natural human things like sharing with friends, there has to be a specific benefit to society in every instance. For example, pay taxes on copyrights and patents, increasing every year to reflect disturbance caused to society.
Are there any organizations working toward the abolition of intellectual property in the US? I agree with you that it's ridiculous and would love to do something about it.
Wait a few more months... let's see what the bittorrent and private crypto folks end up doing with AI...
Either way, IP is going to either accept defeat or get very very loose in its claims, as the ability is almost here to just process a feature-length film, slightly modify each scene and replace script, camera angles, environments and actors with generic IP-free amalgamations, all while still capturing the tone and story... Images/text/code are already done for. Who's going to enforce that, and how much similarity do you need to infringe? Who's going to prove you processed that film when nothing about your movie is quite the same?
What makes Sunday so special? Why not just pass worker protection laws that prevent people from overworking, rather than dictating a magical day that nobody can work. It's a stupid idea and a dumb law that it only makes sense if your worker protection laws are too weak.
Having a fixed day off allows people to plan leisure activities with friends and family as it was guaranteed they too would also have the day off.
So, should this be extended to all workers? And all places that people might spend leisure time? Let's say restaurants and bars, cinemas, public swimming pools, markets, amusement parks.
As those people should have same exact rights to spend leisure time with their families and friends.
I don't think that answers the question. Suppose I want to go to the movies on my day off. I can't, precisely because everyone else is off, too.
entertainment venues, museums, restaurants, etc are usually getting an exception here. public transport and emergency services too. can't shut the country down. i am actually curious how they do that in israel where the jewish law not to work on sabbath is taken much more seriously.
And why should they? Why should not those workers get same rights? Are they somehow lesser? Just give them also mandatory time off on same day. And then they like others can take some other time free to go to those places.
Not OP, but I think having one day where nearly everyone (except restaurants, attractions, hospitality and essential services) has off is good for family cohesion. It gives everyone a guaranteed weekly timeslot to spend time together.
Does cohesion of those families matter less?
Essential services I think should be in different pool. They are needed to run modern world. But they should be limited to bare needed staff. Just so that emergency cases can be handled and emergency actions taken.
And I btw, do not count public transport as essential service. People have plenty of time to walk, and emergency can include ambulances for medical problems.
If we work together, I think it would be realistic for us to attain a rollback of most recent one or two copyright term extensions by following a two-pronged strategy: (1) Show politicians on the left how copyright term extensions have largely amounted to a transfer of wealth from the public to large corporations, and (2) Show politicians on the right how rolling back to an earlier version of copyright would reduce t…
Politicians in the US are corrupt. You need a rich person who cares about your cause to bribe them more than the rich businesses with copyrights are currently bribing them. Then the law will be changed.
The article doesn't seem to understand the issue. Whether a copy of a work is fair use turns on, amongst other things, the effect of the copy on the potential market for the original. The article acknowledges this. Controlled Digital Lending competes directly with the licensing scheme publishers have for library ebooks. The fair use argument was always doomed to fail. The article then completely ignores the copyright…
What IA is doing is removing the physical copy from circulation, making a digital copy, and lending out the digital copy. I don't see the argument that this is "distribution" any more than regular (obnoxious) ebook lending is.
One of the reasons the IA has lost (at least so far) here is that the judge noted they do not really do that, and have no mechanisms in place for doing that.
I thought the IA was in a bad place before, but they got very shown up in court.