4 ms·
I think several of you are missing the point of Mr. Buchheit's writing. If we remove some information from the Internet because of reasons A and B, why isn't it
by absconditus 17y ago
I think several of you are missing the point of Mr. Buchheit's writing. If we remove some information from the Internet because of reasons A and B, why isn't it valid for another entity to remove information for reasons A, B and even reason C which is potentially more important?
- absconditus 17y agoI also want to point out that he states in the very first sentences that he does not agree with this position.
- axod 17y agoBecause it matters 'what' it is :/ Just like freedom of speech has several caveats to it. You can't say anything you like, there are exceptions.
- lmkg 17y agoThere is a very vital distinction: Disney removes all other copies, but allows access to the original. China removes all copies. Disney restricts how you can access the information, but China restricts what you can access. Granted, the distinction isn't completely binary, as you can restrict access to modes that are difficult. But I still think that the distinction is productive. Disney's restriction does still fundamentally allow access to the material, while China does not.
- zmimon 17y ago> Disney removes all other copies, but allows access to the original. But they don't have to - they could banish Mickey from the world if they chose to. Copyright allows them to do it. Is that wrong? I think it's more about who created the information - copyright is about controlling things you yourself create. Censorship is about controlling access to things other people created.
- naa42 17y agoBe the way, can the company be the creator? The work of art is created by people. So why the current Disney's directors or shareholders do control the creation of the company's founder who has passed decades ago?