3 ms·
I thought it had a lot of points. Defending the usefulness of copyright is a rare position on the internet, and he does give some actual reasons as to why copyr
by zasz 18y ago
I thought it had a lot of points. Defending the usefulness of copyright is a rare position on the internet, and he does give some actual reasons as to why copyright is useful (which is why his article is pointful rather than pointless)--it protects movies and books and other forms of creative content that are difficult to produce. He also takes some common defenses of copyright infringement (though he seems to reconstruct a couple as strawmen) and debunks them.
- maxklein 18y agoDefending copyright is not a rare opinion in my world. The opinions he talks about there are like the most basic opinions that anyone trying to defend copyright would come up with. Nothing new at all. It's as if he suddenly decided to think contrarian, then quickly wrote down the first thoughts he could think of. I used to work in the development division of a very major recording company. Reading his article would be like a competent C++ programmer reading an article about why classes are useful - sure, the article may be correct, but it's pointless reading, except for people who have never even entertained that thought.
- zasz 18y agoThen the problem is not that it was pointless, but that it was not novel. The article in question for your C++ programmer has a point; the programmer just doesn't care. As a college student, defending copyright is rare in MY world, and people look at me funny when I tell them I buy CDs, and my brother laughs at me when I say I'm going to support Obsidian by buying their next game full price as soon as it comes out. I liked Matt's article; it was pretty basic analysis, but it was reasonable.