4 ms·

im a bit surprised by this thread tbh! the original comment's pragmatics (in the linguistic sense) are pretty clearly "i believe this is an abuse of the copyrig

by uryga 6y ago

im a bit surprised by this thread tbh! the original comment's pragmatics (in the linguistic sense) are pretty clearly "i believe this is an abuse of the copyright mechanism". discussing the system's original purpose or whatever seems besides the point...

coldtea 6y ago
But it's only an abuse of the copyright mechanism based on the "original purpose" (to promote art etc). It's not an abuse based on its actual, de facto, purpose: to sustain profitable back catalogue sales and aid the entertainment industry. So whether the "original purpose" is important is the whole point in determining abuse or not...
- rumanator 6y ago
  It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. I'm sure that, if you are serious about the discussion, we can easily agree that both are not equivalent or comparable.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. Not exactly. When the grandparent (metalliqaz) wrote "This is not what copyright is for", I felt like they were the one confusing/conflating the "spirit of the law"(about copyright) with what copyright is actually used for, and intented to be used for, by the parties passing copyright laws and benefiting from them. Copyright might not have been "for this", in some original "spirit of the law" sense, but it very much is for this in the de facto, 70 years plus running, sense. So, I'm saying that there's an expressed spirit of the law and an operating (de facto) spirit of the law. Or, if you will, what the law hypocritically pays lip service to, and what the law is actually drafted and passed to achieve. Those laws might have started back in the day with the intention (spirit) to promote the arts and protect creators etc, but for nearly a century they have been extended with the intention of making the entertainment business more profitable and protecting a multi-trillion US industry. That's the actual spirit those laws are drafted, proposed, passed, and enforced for 70+ years now... Few (if any) in the lawmaking and in the industry cares for the original "spirit of the law", the original wording is just left there as a historical artifact, to justify a different (and even opposing) application of the copyright law.

by uryga 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

But it's only an abuse of the copyright mechanism based on the "original purpose" (to promote art etc). It's not an abuse based on its actual, de facto, purpose: to sustain profitable back catalogue sales and aid the entertainment industry. So whether the "original purpose" is important is the whole point in determining abuse or not...

rumanator 6y ago
It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. I'm sure that, if you are serious about the discussion, we can easily agree that both are not equivalent or comparable.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >It seems you're confounding, for some reason, the concept of spirit of the law with an initial usecase of a technology. Not exactly. When the grandparent (metalliqaz) wrote "This is not what copyright is for", I felt like they were the one confusing/conflating the "spirit of the law"(about copyright) with what copyright is actually used for, and intented to be used for, by the parties passing copyright laws and benefiting from them. Copyright might not have been "for this", in some original "spirit of the law" sense, but it very much is for this in the de facto, 70 years plus running, sense. So, I'm saying that there's an expressed spirit of the law and an operating (de facto) spirit of the law. Or, if you will, what the law hypocritically pays lip service to, and what the law is actually drafted and passed to achieve. Those laws might have started back in the day with the intention (spirit) to promote the arts and protect creators etc, but for nearly a century they have been extended with the intention of making the entertainment business more profitable and protecting a multi-trillion US industry. That's the actual spirit those laws are drafted, proposed, passed, and enforced for 70+ years now... Few (if any) in the lawmaking and in the industry cares for the original "spirit of the law", the original wording is just left there as a historical artifact, to justify a different (and even opposing) application of the copyright law.