3 ms·
It's always easy to criticize something as silly if one is not dependent on it for one's livelihood. As the concept of patronage by royalty has gone away, our s
by sfifs 4y ago
It's always easy to criticize something as silly if one is not dependent on it for one's livelihood. As the concept of patronage by royalty has gone away, our societies have decided to reward creative arts with copyright instead. This has arguably allowed art to be broadly enjoyed by public Vs being restricted to high society patrons as it was in the past and so is a social good in the economic sense. You may disagree but the route is to convince enough co-citizens in your nation to get the law changed.
This kind of technology is dangerous to the ignorant user because use of this kind of watermark removal just demonstrates intent to violate copyright by the user.
- musicale 4y ago> our societies have decided to reward creative arts with copyright instead In the US, the constitutional purpose of copyright is not to reward creative arts, but "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The (ostensibly) limited monopoly of copyright is intended to provide an incentive for promoting progress of science and "useful" arts. But I think you're right - in practice US copyright law has expanded beyond its constitutional scope (and arguably beyond the authority granted to congress) into a reward system for (some) copyright holders.