141–150 of 178 posts
Not judging the law or ethics around piracy here, but the idea of EU suppressing a commissioned report that "goes south" is absolutely diabolical to its reputation. That does not sound very progressive.
The best way to reduce piracy of copyrighted works is to cut the copyright period by 75% relative to current standards. To be fair to individual living authors who hold their own copyrights, this would mean copyrights persisted 18 years past the author's death, or for 24 years after date of publication for for-hire contract jobs. This is comparable to the lifetime of technical patents, and so would allow for a reason…
Of course this comment is nothing other than an internet rant because humans has no control over humanity’s large scale activities. They’re almost deterministically emergent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Copyright at least makes big players pay the original creators for the rights to the works. Netflix going ahead and making money off of subscribers while paying nothing to creators would be a significantly worse situation.
> Would you be pleased if that applied to all of your work too? That immediately anyone can start taking your work and making money off of it? Sure. From now on I either release my software as AGPLv3 or I don't release it at all. Truth is even if someone violates my license I'm not gonna waste my limited time on this earth litigating against them in court over it. I have better things to do. Stallman would disagree b…
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/501607/wipe-out-when-bbc...
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/missing-pieces/lost-mov...
It basically kill competition and helps big players.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it shouldn't be legal to write your Congressional rep and tell them you want them to do X?
It shouldn't be legal to hire groups of professionals to do that, it also shouldn't be legal to send your representatives gifts, take them on vacations, or out to dinner Writing them a letter is fine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's not a reasonable compromise. Your proposal of 0 years in a nonstarter, and walking slightly back from that is still a nonstarter. On the contrary. Copyright itself is a non-starter. Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. They're the ones who need to convince us to respect whatever social contract they seek to impose. They are doing such a horrible job at it that it can be argued that co…
> Copyright itself is a non-starter. Sure...in your fantasy land. In the real world, it's not (because, as a sibling comment noted, it's the status quo and not even a very controversial one at that). > That's why 10 years is an exceptionally generous compromise. Being selfish but calling it "exceptionally generous" doesn't make it so. It just means you're deluded or a liar. >>> Remember, copyright exists at all becau…
The only valid argument for something like copyright would be that it improves society as a whole. I don't think it does. I have not seen any evidence that it does. I have seen plenty of evidence how it hurts everyone. That some benefit or even rely on it is absolutely completely irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humanity would be more than happy to make that effort if there was no risk of getting sued to oblivion for it. There's more than enough distributed storage capacity out there to hold it all. Copyright holders are the ones who are outright hostile to any and all preservation efforts, to the point preservation of culture is an argument for getting rid of copyright.
Preservation has nothing to do with copyright. Buy a book, and preserve it yourself. Done. Oh, but you're only arguing against copyright so you can freely take others work without remuneration. IF you're a creator, and you believe that copyright shouldn't exist - everything you produce, please... put it in the public domain and see what happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does this have to do with anything? Libraries handle the preserving and sharing to the public of information. In spite of copyright, not thanks to it. Historically they literally copied one book into paper to duplicate/preserve it. That would be copyright infringement now. And more recently copyright holders are trying to delete any archives that could be used for that purpose like the internet archive or LibGen…
It was basically impossible to survive solely as a writer until copyright. Imagine publishing a book in the 16th century. At best you'd get some royalties from the initial publisher. After that if you work becomes popular every printer across the continent can start printing copies without paying you anything. That's obviously a huge impediment to innovation and progress.
If your argument for copyright relies on protecting speicific jobs then you have no argument. Jobs become obsolete all the time.
If you want welfare then argue for that. Best if it isn't restricted to a small class of people.