4 ms·

> The false presumption you make here is that you are entitled to these works; you are not. That's not true. If a publisher refuses to publish a book in braill

by mopsi 3y ago

> The false presumption you make here is that you are entitled to these works; you are not. That's not true. If a publisher refuses to publish a book in braille because they see no profit in that, but nevertheless sues everyone who does the conversion to braille and publication on their own, then this directly deprives blind people of their cultural rights.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" And what the hell is "cultural rights"? There's no law to make things accessible to the blind. Companies will try to do it to get more customers, though. Yes, a company can sue over a reference to their works outside of fair use cases. a translation is not a case of fair use. Companies usually won't go after such things unless they already have immediate plans to translate, but they can. Similar to how they can go after fanart but usually leave it be as easy, free, organic advertising.
- mopsi 3y ago
  > how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" It's not a contrived example, but an actual problem with converting books to braille. The only entitlement I see here is the expectation by authors to have absolute control over their work, even if there is no profit to be made (remember: copyright was established to protect income streams). > And what the hell is "cultural rights"? Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27. The same article that established groundwork for copyright also establishes the right to access protected works for the well-being, education and enjoyment of others. Current standards are heavily out of balance in favor of all-encompassing copyright, which was never intended as such, and has become increasingly detrimental to the right to participate in culture. The right to participate in culture is infringed upon, for example, when essayists are unable to publish video essays about movies and illustrate their ideas with a few seconds from each movie, because they get caught in overzealous copyright protection. I don't see a good reason why the full force of the state should back movie studios against scholars, historians and critics; it is not in our best interests.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >The only entitlement I see here is the expectation by authors to have absolute control over their work Well they are the author or funder of said art. They should feel entitled to how it's distributed. If they are working on a braille translation and someone else pops up, you can understand why they should have the power to make sure the latter can't make money off their IP, no? But my point is that this is contrived because most people downloading a torrent are not doing transformative work. A few may make mods or fan translations or entire overhaul of the game, but well over 99.9% just want to consume as is. And well, those 0.1% can just buy the work? >Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27. That article has 2 parts. The 2nd: >Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Pretty much defends copyright, so the goal here isn't to turn all of media into a commons. They acknowledge that art and science is something society benefits from, but also that the authors of such culture have some protection against being leeches upon. >The right to participate in culture is infringed upon, for example, when essayists are unable to publish video essays about movies and illustrate their ideas with a few seconds from each movie, because they get caught in overzealous copyright protection. I mean, they do? The overzealous one is YouTube in this case who has no legal incentive to push their luck, not the law which is why DMCA's aren't even more aggressive. I get your point here, but that specific example is more a problem with the YouTube monopoly than the word of the law. I think we all agree that DMCA abusers should be punished, even if the question Of DMCA as a law us valid.

by mopsi 3y ago

johnnyanmac 3y ago

how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" And what the hell is "cultural rights"? There's no law to make things accessible to the blind. Companies will try to do it to get more customers, though. Yes, a company can sue over a reference to their works outside of fair use cases. a translation is not a case of fair use. Companies usually won't go after such things unless they already have immediate plans to translate, but they can. Similar to how they can go after fanart but usually leave it be as easy, free, organic advertising.

mopsi 3y ago
> how does that contrived example address the point of "you are not entitled to these works?" It's not a contrived example, but an actual problem with converting books to braille. The only entitlement I see here is the expectation by authors to have absolute control over their work, even if there is no profit to be made (remember: copyright was established to protect income streams). > And what the hell is "cultural rights"? Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27. The same article that established groundwork for copyright also establishes the right to access protected works for the well-being, education and enjoyment of others. Current standards are heavily out of balance in favor of all-encompassing copyright, which was never intended as such, and has become increasingly detrimental to the right to participate in culture. The right to participate in culture is infringed upon, for example, when essayists are unable to publish video essays about movies and illustrate their ideas with a few seconds from each movie, because they get caught in overzealous copyright protection. I don't see a good reason why the full force of the state should back movie studios against scholars, historians and critics; it is not in our best interests.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >The only entitlement I see here is the expectation by authors to have absolute control over their work Well they are the author or funder of said art. They should feel entitled to how it's distributed. If they are working on a braille translation and someone else pops up, you can understand why they should have the power to make sure the latter can't make money off their IP, no? But my point is that this is contrived because most people downloading a torrent are not doing transformative work. A few may make mods or fan translations or entire overhaul of the game, but well over 99.9% just want to consume as is. And well, those 0.1% can just buy the work? >Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27. That article has 2 parts. The 2nd: >Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Pretty much defends copyright, so the goal here isn't to turn all of media into a commons. They acknowledge that art and science is something society benefits from, but also that the authors of such culture have some protection against being leeches upon. >The right to participate in culture is infringed upon, for example, when essayists are unable to publish video essays about movies and illustrate their ideas with a few seconds from each movie, because they get caught in overzealous copyright protection. I mean, they do? The overzealous one is YouTube in this case who has no legal incentive to push their luck, not the law which is why DMCA's aren't even more aggressive. I get your point here, but that specific example is more a problem with the YouTube monopoly than the word of the law. I think we all agree that DMCA abusers should be punished, even if the question Of DMCA as a law us valid.