5 ms·

No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very f

No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very frequently goes off the rails towards something that doesn't help the goal at all. > It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons. >It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. You could make a good argument here about how copyright law is too long, but that point is lost in the rest of the sentence. >It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. You don't need to get the rights if it's a fully original work. You could also make a good argument here about how licensing is too difficult to obtain sometimes but that point is also lost. >It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants This never happened. Youtube-dl is still up, if I recall for the short period it was taken down there were like 20 forks that popped up immediately. >It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight. >It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one. >It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. >If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention. There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I've tried to make these comments constructive so maybe that can guide you towards what your real issue is.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago
> No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. The moment an author makes something public and it gains significant traction is the moment it starts to be part of global culture instead of just only the author's. Either publish the work with everything that it entails, including archival and assimilation of that work into popular culture, or don't publish at all. If you don't want society to archive your works, then it shouldn't even know of their existence. There's no middle-ground.
autoexec 5y ago
> This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons. It's a problem regardless. No industry should be allowed to force a 3rd party to cancel your service with them over mere accusations. The fact that there are countless examples of DMCA notices being sent in error, or intentionally sent inappropriately doesn't make the situation any better either. While I agree that ISPs should not be a monopoly and we should all have easy access to high speed connections at low prices from a large number of providers, that's not the reality we live in, it still wouldn't solve the problem since as long as there are finite amount of providers you'll still eventually be able to be kicked offline, and I shouldn't be forced from the provider of my choosing in the first place. > Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. The people who decide not to publish aren't doing it because they fear random lawsuits from random people. Their fear is very specific. They decide not to create or publish their work out of fear of being sued under our overbroad and excessively punishing copyright laws. Winning doesn't help if you're driven into debt and bankruptcy by the costs. While companies I've never heard of could randomly sue for any reason out of nowhere (a major problem on its own) the risk of that happening to me is very small. For people publishing music (even those within the traditional system) it's much much higher and it's already having an impact. (see: https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-lawsuits-chilling-effect-935310/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-la...) I don't think this is unintentional. By increasing the risk of creating new works outside of relative safety of the RIAA's umbrella they can silence indie artists who don't want to sign their rights away. > No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. See above - it does stop the creation of new works from people who either can't find the rights to do what they want, can't afford them, or fear the lawsuits they will face if they go ahead anyway. Sita Sings the Blues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues) is a great example of a wonderful creative original work that almost didn't happen because of our insane copyright laws. In the end, the creator was only able to get the work out to the public by releasing it for free and she's still at risk of lawsuits. I recommend reading the copyright section of her FAQ here https://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html https://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html > This never happened. Strange take in a discussion of Duckduckgo removing links to the project form their search engine and immediately followed by how even though it was wrongfully removed before other people had forks so somehow that didn't matter. It mattered then, just like it matters now that DDG is hiding that tool from the public. > This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight. The censorship issue is concerning what ISPs, hosting services, and search engines are forced to remove. No company should have the power to remove content from the internet without due process and right now, that's not happening. Youtube pulls content down all the time in response to DMCA notices that should never have been enforced and that content stays down unless the uploader invests significant amounts of time and effort getting it restored which is still not always the outcome. So far, the US has resisted site blocking at the ISP level (something the MPA/RIAA has managed to force on ISPs in other countries) but they keep asking for that capability here as well. Oversight doesn't come in the form of aggressive takedown demands or automated systems blindly taking down content whenever a DMCA notice gets fired off. It comes from careful evaluation of takedown notices before content is removed or sites are taken offline. Just recently, lack of oversight caused youtube to take down people's videos after youtube got DMCA notices that were not legitimate and youtube's polices made it very hard for real copyright owner to get the issue resolved. (https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-senders-of-fake-destiny-dmca-notices-220328/ https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-send...) > This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one. If DRM was a purely technical problem, we'd be free to use purely technical means to get around it and you'd be right except that it's illegal to bypass DRM or to post tools that would allow that to happen. The law which makes it illegal is the DMCA. When youtube-dl was forced offline the action was defended under that very same __copyright__ law. Their argument was that the tool circumvented youtube's DRM. It doesn't, but that didn't stop them from trying to make that case. > No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. Yes. It is. It's our culture. We all share it. If an artist wants full control over their work they should keep it to themselves. Once they release it to public it becomes a shared experience that belongs to everyone involved. Do you really believe that Superman isn't a part of our culture? That Mario Bros. isn't a part of our culture? Copyright law was put in place to give special rights to creators for a limited time to encourage new works. Not because naturally they have the right to keep us from our culture. They don't. They needed special rights to do it. The deal was we'd accept that for the sake of new works, we would temporarily give up our rights, and in exchange once that temporary period of special rights ended, works would enter the public domain. They broke that deal with perpetual copyrights and DRM. Copyright law is being abused to hinder the creation of new works. It's time to change the system. > There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I can't force you to understand, but I'm willing to help you as long as you're willing to listen.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago

> No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. The moment an author makes something public and it gains significant traction is the moment it starts to be part of global culture instead of just only the author's. Either publish the work with everything that it entails, including archival and assimilation of that work into popular culture, or don't publish at all. If you don't want society to archive your works, then it shouldn't even know of their existence. There's no middle-ground.

autoexec 5y ago

> This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons. It's a problem regardless. No industry should be allowed to force a 3rd party to cancel your service with them over mere accusations. The fact that there are countless examples of DMCA notices being sent in error, or intentionally sent inappropriately doesn't make the situation any better either. While I agree that ISPs should not be a monopoly and we should all have easy access to high speed connections at low prices from a large number of providers, that's not the reality we live in, it still wouldn't solve the problem since as long as there are finite amount of providers you'll still eventually be able to be kicked offline, and I shouldn't be forced from the provider of my choosing in the first place. > Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. The people who decide not to publish aren't doing it because they fear random lawsuits from random people. Their fear is very specific. They decide not to create or publish their work out of fear of being sued under our overbroad and excessively punishing copyright laws. Winning doesn't help if you're driven into debt and bankruptcy by the costs. While companies I've never heard of could randomly sue for any reason out of nowhere (a major problem on its own) the risk of that happening to me is very small. For people publishing music (even those within the traditional system) it's much much higher and it's already having an impact. (see: https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-lawsuits-chilling-effect-935310/ https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-la...) I don't think this is unintentional. By increasing the risk of creating new works outside of relative safety of the RIAA's umbrella they can silence indie artists who don't want to sign their rights away. > No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. See above - it does stop the creation of new works from people who either can't find the rights to do what they want, can't afford them, or fear the lawsuits they will face if they go ahead anyway. Sita Sings the Blues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues) is a great example of a wonderful creative original work that almost didn't happen because of our insane copyright laws. In the end, the creator was only able to get the work out to the public by releasing it for free and she's still at risk of lawsuits. I recommend reading the copyright section of her FAQ here https://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html https://www.sitasingstheblues.com/faq.html > This never happened. Strange take in a discussion of Duckduckgo removing links to the project form their search engine and immediately followed by how even though it was wrongfully removed before other people had forks so somehow that didn't matter. It mattered then, just like it matters now that DDG is hiding that tool from the public. > This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight. The censorship issue is concerning what ISPs, hosting services, and search engines are forced to remove. No company should have the power to remove content from the internet without due process and right now, that's not happening. Youtube pulls content down all the time in response to DMCA notices that should never have been enforced and that content stays down unless the uploader invests significant amounts of time and effort getting it restored which is still not always the outcome. So far, the US has resisted site blocking at the ISP level (something the MPA/RIAA has managed to force on ISPs in other countries) but they keep asking for that capability here as well. Oversight doesn't come in the form of aggressive takedown demands or automated systems blindly taking down content whenever a DMCA notice gets fired off. It comes from careful evaluation of takedown notices before content is removed or sites are taken offline. Just recently, lack of oversight caused youtube to take down people's videos after youtube got DMCA notices that were not legitimate and youtube's polices made it very hard for real copyright owner to get the issue resolved. (https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-senders-of-fake-destiny-dmca-notices-220328/ https://torrentfreak.com/bungie-files-lawsuit-to-punish-send...) > This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one. If DRM was a purely technical problem, we'd be free to use purely technical means to get around it and you'd be right except that it's illegal to bypass DRM or to post tools that would allow that to happen. The law which makes it illegal is the DMCA. When youtube-dl was forced offline the action was defended under that very same __copyright__ law. Their argument was that the tool circumvented youtube's DRM. It doesn't, but that didn't stop them from trying to make that case. > No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. Yes. It is. It's our culture. We all share it. If an artist wants full control over their work they should keep it to themselves. Once they release it to public it becomes a shared experience that belongs to everyone involved. Do you really believe that Superman isn't a part of our culture? That Mario Bros. isn't a part of our culture? Copyright law was put in place to give special rights to creators for a limited time to encourage new works. Not because naturally they have the right to keep us from our culture. They don't. They needed special rights to do it. The deal was we'd accept that for the sake of new works, we would temporarily give up our rights, and in exchange once that temporary period of special rights ended, works would enter the public domain. They broke that deal with perpetual copyrights and DRM. Copyright law is being abused to hinder the creation of new works. It's time to change the system. > There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I can't force you to understand, but I'm willing to help you as long as you're willing to listen.