3 ms·

> is a simple, easily computable function of that sequence of bits. It's not. That's one of the main points of the article. It is... you get a human to listen

> is a simple, easily computable function of that sequence of bits. It's not. That's one of the main points of the article. It is... you get a human to listen to it, and they'll know. > equates uploading a copy of a song that has already made millions, and over which rights of authorship are not even being asserted by its actual author, with stealing the bread out of the mouth of the author. That argument violates the US Constitution as well as obvious common sense. The 'right of authorship' was asserted by the author when they gave someone else the right to enforce their copyright in exchange for a fixed sum -- something you call purchasing. > So authors had a strong incentive not to make an issue of the obvious absurdities in the legal theory that the publishers were relying on to assert copyright. There is no absurdity, except that which you construct in order to limit the rights of authors, the very people you are purporting to support.

pdonis 6y ago
> you get a human to listen to it If you think this is what "simple, easily computable function means", I have no idea what language you think you are speaking, but it isn't English. > they gave someone else the right to enforce their copyright But how is that even possible given the plain language of the US Constitution that copyright protects the "authors" of works? You can't transfer the fact of being the author. Yes, I know our current legal regime in practice allows this. I'm simply saying that means our current legal regime is broken and needs to be fixed. > that which you construct in order to limit the rights of authors, the very people you are purporting to support By your own account, the author is out of it as soon as they receive the "fixed sum" from the media company. So limiting the nonsense the media company can get away with after that point does not affect the author at all.

pdonis 6y ago

> you get a human to listen to it If you think this is what "simple, easily computable function means", I have no idea what language you think you are speaking, but it isn't English. > they gave someone else the right to enforce their copyright But how is that even possible given the plain language of the US Constitution that copyright protects the "authors" of works? You can't transfer the fact of being the author. Yes, I know our current legal regime in practice allows this. I'm simply saying that means our current legal regime is broken and needs to be fixed. > that which you construct in order to limit the rights of authors, the very people you are purporting to support By your own account, the author is out of it as soon as they receive the "fixed sum" from the media company. So limiting the nonsense the media company can get away with after that point does not affect the author at all.