4 ms·
Such a weird argument: "Copyleft people should not argue for better copyright". What does that even mean?
by oolonthegreat 5y ago
Such a weird argument: "Copyleft people should not argue for better copyright". What does that even mean?
- pessimizer 5y agoShe's arguing that copyleft people are arguing for an effective extension of copyright into places IP lobbyists are currently fighting for. It's not a good framing. She's saying that we shouldn't argue for copyright to be consistent if we're against copyright - arguing that we should make a moral argument against a legal situation. It's as if we couldn't argue against drug companies being allowed to sell heroin if we were anti-drug war and drugs would remain illegal. It's a strategy argument that leads nowhere. If the result of making machine written works also subject to copyright results in all possible songs being copyrighted by a machine, that's a good outcome. It's obviously absurd and weakens the entire concept. We should demand consistency. If this is fine, we might as well stop enforcing the GPL, too. It's a trick of copyright to further the cause of anti-copyright. I'm sure somebody can write an "auto-fork" that will digest GPL'd code and rearrange and rephrase it in order to spit out a clone.