4 ms·
I never liked that interpretation of copyright much. Clearly the person publishing the data ought to be the one liable, if someone obtains the data they should
by contravariant 2y ago
I never liked that interpretation of copyright much. Clearly the person publishing the data ought to be the one liable, if someone obtains the data they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it in private.
I think at least some legal systems agree with my interpretation, but the U.S. is insane.
- wilg 2y agoIt's not publishright, it's copyright.
- 0xcde4c3db 2y agoThe broad contours of modern copyright were formulated at a time when only for-profit enterprises (and perhaps sufficiently well-funded religious groups, but I repeat myself) could actually afford to copy things at scale. It may as well have been called "publishright".
- contravariant 2y agoWell over here the most literal translation is 'author's rights', so arguing it ought to be about copying just because that's in the name doesn't carry much weight in my view. If anything it's a great example of how framing can manipulate people's views. I did mention that I considered the U.S. interpretation insane, didn't I?