3 ms·

> Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked. And your justification fo

> Just because something could provide access to copyrighted material via illegal means doesn't mean it should be stopped or blocked. And your justification for that is? you failed to give one. The possibility of links being changed to something else is not one, because it would never happen that you post a link to your own work named 'Venom' for example, and then a third party comes and changes it to 'Venom, the movie'. This has never happened and it will probably never happen. No links, should be copyrightable, links should be permissible: if you have permission from the author, only then you can post a link to to it. > I don't even think I should go into the permanent copytight, it sounds more like a troll statement than anything... Not a troll, I am deadly serious.

martimarkov 8y ago
My justification is blacklisting rather than whitelisting. You are not born guilty and have to prove you are of a good character. Just because you can commit a crime does not mean we should ban everything you can use to commit crime. If I link to Venom the movie I still have permission from the pirate bay to link to it. The pirate bay or the uploader (who actually created the file itself and the description to that file) will be the author. [if you don't think the uploaded is the author of the new file checkout what you get charged for in the UK for downloading a child pornography file -> creating a NEW child pornography file. obvs not supporting child porn but i still feel this is a bit excesive] Like links are nothing more than pointers. It's like saying if you had permission from the author of this book can you only tell other people. As for the permanent copyright -> Your work is not original it's a remix (there is a great video on youtube). You never come up with an original idea. It's always influenced by others. So this kinda kills the whole "original idea" myth we have. Let's say you have to write a short story no more than 5 words. There are just N possible combinations you can do. What you should have copyright until the universe ended because you wrote every single combination? Just because you were the first person to go to the moon does not mean you own the moon. Why should it be any diff with the 5 words sentance you were asked to write?

martimarkov 8y ago

My justification is blacklisting rather than whitelisting. You are not born guilty and have to prove you are of a good character. Just because you can commit a crime does not mean we should ban everything you can use to commit crime. If I link to Venom the movie I still have permission from the pirate bay to link to it. The pirate bay or the uploader (who actually created the file itself and the description to that file) will be the author. [if you don't think the uploaded is the author of the new file checkout what you get charged for in the UK for downloading a child pornography file -> creating a NEW child pornography file. obvs not supporting child porn but i still feel this is a bit excesive] Like links are nothing more than pointers. It's like saying if you had permission from the author of this book can you only tell other people. As for the permanent copyright -> Your work is not original it's a remix (there is a great video on youtube). You never come up with an original idea. It's always influenced by others. So this kinda kills the whole "original idea" myth we have. Let's say you have to write a short story no more than 5 words. There are just N possible combinations you can do. What you should have copyright until the universe ended because you wrote every single combination? Just because you were the first person to go to the moon does not mean you own the moon. Why should it be any diff with the 5 words sentance you were asked to write?