141–150 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. Citation needed. You can freely copy and distribute linux and it still got made.
Linux is generally a functional tool, and struggles with overall coherence. There are far fewer success stories of artworks being made in this style. (E.g. there are successful multiplayer open-source games or clones of existing games, but very few original single-player games, and those that there are are largely the work of a single individual)
That's why some people like to call it 'Gnu/Linux', but thanks to recent advances we can make Gnu-free Linuxes today, too.
> There are far fewer success stories of artworks being made in this style. (E.g. there are successful multiplayer open-source games or clones of existing games, but very few original single-player games, and those that there are are largely the work of a single individual)
Humans have made art since forever. Large collaborative efforts like eg a cathedral are a more recent invention. But by these standards copyright was practically invented yesterday.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's kind of a "life arc" that gets fulfilled when you've done it all and have all the money in the world, and reach a certain age. It's a very traditional arc for a humane human being.
[flagged]
For example the firehose/streaming API more or less require 5 grand a month, so off limits to a indie dev. Does he not even have solidarity with developers?
wish I could change my terms to bar training of AI models on my content
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want a point, BSD is probably a better example. Linux is protected by copyright, that's what makes copyleft licenses like GPL possible. BSD is also protected by copyright, but it matters less for permissive licenses. It still protects attribution (so you can't claim it yours), but it probably would have worked without it, unlike with Linux that is for a big part defined by the "copyleft" protections offered by…
> It still protects attribution (so you can't claim it yours), but it probably would have worked without it, [...] Well, you could imagine a world that protects the 'moral' rights of authors like attribution, but doesn't otherwise prohibit anyone from duplicating or modifying works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this would void the copyrights of your citizens and companies essentially forever
Iran enforces domestic copyright internally but not international copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If an artist or author can't do this, social media shouldn't be able to do it either. Even if this is done, the case of starving artist v. megacorp will probably go to whoever wields the most money and lawyers. To add insult to injury, the artist’s opponent is fueled by their ill-gotten gains.
This is dependent on country. USA, yes with their draconian methods. Countries like the UK, the looser of the suit pays all the cost. UK layers have no problem taking low wealth client cases they know will win. UK allows for David vs Goliath and David to win. US up lifts Goliath as a God.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
X/Twitter has became extremely prohibitive with just about everything since Elon took over. Their API pricing was antagonistic toward even indie developers. Elon is not a generous guy.
> Elon is not a generous guy Why would he be?
Why would he be?
Why shouldn't he be?
He has 10x more of everything in the world than he could ever possibly use in his lifetime.
Greed is not a virtue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a wild reference! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk > Roko's basilisk is a thought experiment which states there could be an otherwise benevolent artificial superintelligence (AI) in the future that would punish anyone who knew of its potential existence but did not directly contribute to its advancement or development, in order to incentivize said advancement.
It's Pascal's Wager with a sci-fi reskin, and all the objections that go along with that.