3 ms·

By enforcing the copyright laws that exist already to protect content creators from being counterfeited and ripped off by illegal scammers and bootleggers. Are

By enforcing the copyright laws that exist already to protect content creators from being counterfeited and ripped off by illegal scammers and bootleggers. Are you saying you don't agree with the concept of copyrights?

josefx 5y ago
How does showing Lion King at your kids birthday party qualify for any of that? I know I know, Disneys inability to collect money for every pair of eyes watching their movies during VHS times literally made it one of the poorest companies on the world. /s
- ddtaylor 5y ago
  Does this mean you don't support copyright?
  - josefx 5y ago
    Do you support mandatory cavity searches after every shopping trip? Property laws are important, you should do your part to uphold them.
    - ddtaylor 5y ago
      I think this kind of client-side hashing and comparing to a database list is similar to the scanners at every Wal-Mart and the procedures at airports.
      - josefx 5y ago
        I don't remember airport security scanners at my local supermarket.
        ddtaylor 5y ago
        I think that fits into the category of the Wal-Mart scanners which are at many stores.
  - exo762 5y ago
    Lots of people don't support copyright. It's a concept that should be abolished in it's current form. Right to attribution is OK. Ability to restrict other forms of use is not OK.
    - ddtaylor 5y ago
      Does that mean if someone spends time and effort writing a book or painting a picture that I can resell it for less than them without their permission?
      - exo762 5y ago
        Why would any fan of someones work buy a knock-off copy? We can safely assume they are a fan, otherwise why would even buy it? Also, painting is a physical object. It's a one of a kind. EDIT: your objection and many many other questions like that are nicely argued against here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI (The Surprising History of Copyright talk by Karl Fogel)
        ddtaylor 5y ago
        Do you think people will want to create new stories if others can undercut and sell their work for less?
        exo762 5y ago
        Yes. Definitely. Absolute staggering majority of people writing books don't sell even one copy. And my bet is - they know what are the chances. EDIT1: More than that. People don't live of royalties. Publishers do. Can people create without being paid upfront by publishers? Obviously yes. They can be paid upfront in kickstarter-like arrangement. They can be paid via donations later. They can even be paid via "retroactive funding of public goods" [0]. Or they can be never paid - just as they are today. [0] - https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-goods-funding-33c9b7d00f0c https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-good... EDIT2: Also, imagine how much good could come of long-standing IP properties owned by Disney if not for them sitting on it. Vide disaster that is current management of Star Wars.

josefx 5y ago

How does showing Lion King at your kids birthday party qualify for any of that? I know I know, Disneys inability to collect money for every pair of eyes watching their movies during VHS times literally made it one of the poorest companies on the world. /s

ddtaylor 5y ago
Does this mean you don't support copyright?
- josefx 5y ago
  Do you support mandatory cavity searches after every shopping trip? Property laws are important, you should do your part to uphold them.
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    I think this kind of client-side hashing and comparing to a database list is similar to the scanners at every Wal-Mart and the procedures at airports.
    - josefx 5y ago
      I don't remember airport security scanners at my local supermarket.
      - ddtaylor 5y ago
        I think that fits into the category of the Wal-Mart scanners which are at many stores.
- exo762 5y ago
  Lots of people don't support copyright. It's a concept that should be abolished in it's current form. Right to attribution is OK. Ability to restrict other forms of use is not OK.
  - ddtaylor 5y ago
    Does that mean if someone spends time and effort writing a book or painting a picture that I can resell it for less than them without their permission?
    - exo762 5y ago
      Why would any fan of someones work buy a knock-off copy? We can safely assume they are a fan, otherwise why would even buy it? Also, painting is a physical object. It's a one of a kind. EDIT: your objection and many many other questions like that are nicely argued against here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI (The Surprising History of Copyright talk by Karl Fogel)
      - ddtaylor 5y ago
        Do you think people will want to create new stories if others can undercut and sell their work for less?
        exo762 5y ago
        Yes. Definitely. Absolute staggering majority of people writing books don't sell even one copy. And my bet is - they know what are the chances. EDIT1: More than that. People don't live of royalties. Publishers do. Can people create without being paid upfront by publishers? Obviously yes. They can be paid upfront in kickstarter-like arrangement. They can be paid via donations later. They can even be paid via "retroactive funding of public goods" [0]. Or they can be never paid - just as they are today. [0] - https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-goods-funding-33c9b7d00f0c https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-good... EDIT2: Also, imagine how much good could come of long-standing IP properties owned by Disney if not for them sitting on it. Vide disaster that is current management of Star Wars.