131–138 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hollywood sure, publishers sure, but tech? Where? The pro piracy pro game cracking open source p2p distribution people?
The people adding DRM to operating systems, display connector standards and even the web.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? What do the rest of us get out of going along with your demand?
After you have owned a car for five years, can I come steal it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> which would have not been created otherwise Claim not supported. You haven't established that absolutely no one else could create the thing. People create things all the time under such liberal conditions as public domain, so having dictatorial power over a thing is not a necessary condition to create it.
Your claim isn't supported either. > People create things all the time under such liberal conditions as public domain And people are free to, even under the duress of copyright. What's the problem there? What was the last movie you saw?
I assume a free society should operate with the least duress, because duress is "compulsion by threat or violence; coercion" which actively restricts activity as opposed to merely ignoring or not participating in it.
If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
The last movie I saw was Disney's Frozen which is based on a Hans Christen Andersen story currently in the public domain. It was good, but not "life of the author + 75 years" good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your claim isn't supported either. > People create things all the time under such liberal conditions as public domain And people are free to, even under the duress of copyright. What's the problem there? What was the last movie you saw?
> And people are free to, even under the duress of copyright. What's the problem there? I assume a free society should operate with the least duress, because duress is "compulsion by threat or violence; coercion" which actively restricts activity as opposed to merely ignoring or not participating in it. If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was…
>If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
Who said delayed? I didn't. The alternative isn't Mulholland drive coming out in 2011 instead of 2001, it's it not being made at all.
And it's trivial to opt out of copyright protection, giving your work up to the public domain. I wonder why more authors don't!
My use of duress was ironic and this conversation is not productive.
Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition
Usually when I see this opinion (yours), it leans on an uncharitable coloring of everybody who sees problems with copyright as "anti-copyright", when really those people largely are happy with the concept of protecting an individual's work. I.e. it is the age-old "those people" argument, where "those people" are a made-up conglomerate of opinions that are real, but come from slightly different contexts and from diffe…
(Not so ironclad that you're wrong not to use it, but I'm a fan of this term, so promulgating)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copying is not theft! I do tend to vibe wjth Paley’s views on originality and creativity, though I haven’t kept up with her recently, good reminder!
Follow-up - hmmmm she’s a self professed terf though apparently
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is part of a recurring pattern in tech of pushing boundaries around copyright. In the last few years, we had Google scanning books, Google threatening to shut down News in Canada rather than pay publishers, LLMs summarizing articles on social platforms, crawlers bypassing paywalls, and so on. Each time, the industry frames it as their interpretation of the current law, which were usually not written with…
i still dont see why google should pay news publishers for each reader google sends to the publisher. like the publisher is getting that view already and can monetize it how they see fit
Big Tech spinelessly folded when they should have just banned news links instead. Google has no obligation to index or link to extortionist news media at all. Watch Murdoch U-turn in ten seconds when no one can find his trash online.
In general, there's far too much compliance with protectionist mandates from corrupt foreign governments. One silver lining of the mostly dark cloud of deglobalisation is the fact that US businesses should no longer care what Australian or Turkish or Russian laws say at all, if they're not in those markets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? What do the rest of us get out of going along with your demand?
After you have owned a car for five years, can I come steal it?