3 ms·

Sure, but you have to admit the arguments in this article are really flimsy right? You don’t think it’s a bit ironic to mention “This is the same tired argumen

Sure, but you have to admit the arguments in this article are really flimsy right? You don’t think it’s a bit ironic to mention “This is the same tired argument we’ve seen with things like BitTorrent”, when the media empires of the world have proved they can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) and b) people who use that software liable for using it to infringe on their intellectual property. Wanting that not to be true because it would be nice if it wasn’t true is unbelievably trite and superficial as an argument, when in the examples given it’s been proved that people can and will make it so, legally, it is. Whatever you believe regarding freedom and intellectual property, it’s irritating to see a parade of weak arguments about it.

Ukv 3y ago
> can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) Isamu Kaneko, the creator of Winny, was cleared of all charges. > and b) people who use that software liable for using it to infringe on their intellectual property. That the liability fell specifically on the users sharing copyrighted material is what the article argues in favor of and implies is approximately the status quo. (While not relevant for Winny, the author does also make a distinction for narrowly trained model whose only purpose is malfeasance.) > when in the examples given it’s been proved that There will definitely be exceptions, but all the examples so far have aligned with the article's argument.