Earlier quoted context omitted.
No as a concept. Assigning ownership to specific bit patterns is absurd.
So, anyone should be able to sell something called "Coca Cola"?
What a dumb question. Got any more?
Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
441–450 of 470 posts
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
The above claim was in fact regarding “intellectual property”. If you break it down, there are plenty of IP rights which make a lot of sense. Here’s one for copyright: “Do you think any corporation should be allowed to make closed source forks of GPL software?”
If there’s no copyright, there’s no closed source. You get their code, decompile/disassemble and reuse as you see fit. You might argue that doesn't help much if they never distribute that code (only runs on their servers). Here’s the inconvenient truth: GPL already allows that. Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. You’d need AGPL to forbid that. GP…
A lack of copyright does not mean secrets cannot exist. In fact, it would heavily incentivize it.
> Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back.
Only privately or over a network, but it prohibits distribution of binaries without source. This is the primary reason the GPL exists.
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And books aren't? Yes, since there are non-fiction books. A book about computer architecture is less „just entertainment“ than a Spotify song.
This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills, and presumably only the kinds that are worthy for productivity and advancement or something. But one person's "just an entertaining story or just a silly hobby" is another's life-changing or mind-opening allegory, or therapeutic pursuit with little immediate "practical" value. I can sort of see the original point; this appears to…
> This implies the only content with moral worth are those that teach knowledge or skills
This is not what OP said. He was talking about the "moral goodness of providing access to X, despite it being illlegal. He never said anything about the moral worth of X itself, let alone that Y had no moral worth.
> AA is providing a valuable service to tons of people who don't have access to these books otherwise. There's a strong argument to be made for the moral goodness of that -- that even if it's illegal, it's at least in the spirit of a public library.
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#444[dead]
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy friendly version of Last.fm for those that want to see a history of the things they've played. I have a history that goes back almost 10 years at this point on a self hosted service.
I see, thanks. What do you use the history for? Is it just curiosity about your own evolving interests, or do you have some other use for it?
I used to use last.fm, I switched to MusicBrainz last year. It has much better API access and I have a history of songs I've listened to since I was 17 in 2007. It's a time capsule, a tracker, a playlist generator and a record all-in-one. Scrobbling is just a word meaning 'to track listens'.
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
Piracy started as a term directly related to theft. Its use in the modern age for copying is also an attempt to frame the activity as theft, even though there is no action that can reasonably described as theft. Copying leaves the original right where it was, so no theft has taken place. I'm not saying that violating copyright is OK, just that the terms we are using to describe the wrongness are willfully dishonest.…
Look, I'm not even claiming that piracy is a good term for it, or that the association between theft and copying wasn't pushed in pro-IP campaigns. But for the past 20 (or 30?) years, piracy has been the word everyone uses for this type of activity. My point is: even if you changed the word, and explained the difference to everyone who couldn't distinguish between (A) literal theft of a physical object, and (B) a rep…
My imperfect solution would be to implement some sort of compulsory licensing system that lets people copy at will for reasonable prices, and comes with a more sensible penalty system for violators. People should get paid for their work, but the system we have for that now sucks for everyone but the middlemen / IP squatters.
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're only talking about music though. You can always literally just record the audio stream if you want. Or do that from free Spotify. Nothing's getting "locked" anywhere when it's just a simple stereo audio signal.
Now you’re at the mercy of YouTube etc’s compression, and having to decompress it for a worse output
[deleted]
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy friendly version of Last.fm for those that want to see a history of the things they've played. I have a history that goes back almost 10 years at this point on a self hosted service.
I see, thanks. What do you use the history for? Is it just curiosity about your own evolving interests, or do you have some other use for it?
You can use it to generate recommendations in MusicBrainz for discovering new music.
I use it just because I like exploring how my tastes change over time.
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is Wikipedia. For that type of publishing please use Encyclopedia Britannica. You will get the url in the 2027 edition on print.
Oh how I wish the print editions were still being released.
If you are really interested we could try piping their [API](https://encyclopediaapi.com/products/index) to some printable format. Maybe we can even find a quality print on demand service or bind it by hand :)
Re: Anna's Archive loses $322M Spotify piracy case without a fight
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there’s no copyright, there’s no closed source. You get their code, decompile/disassemble and reuse as you see fit. You might argue that doesn't help much if they never distribute that code (only runs on their servers). Here’s the inconvenient truth: GPL already allows that. Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. You’d need AGPL to forbid that. GP…
A lack of copyright does not mean secrets cannot exist. In fact, it would heavily incentivize it. > Anyone can take a GPL codebase, do any modifications they want, run it forever, and never contribute back. Only privately or over a network, but it prohibits distribution of binaries without source. This is the primary reason the GPL exists.
And how does that exactly stop Amazon, Google or Microsoft (heh) from running GPLd software in their data centers and raking in money for hosting products built by poor open source devs?
I'm not worried about Microsoft recompiling bash and redistributing it. Is that a realistic problem for you?