4 ms·
I've skimmed the comments, but I didn't see any passionate advocacy for copyright laws. If there's rules we all need to comply with, it can be upsetting to see
by fhd2 2y ago
I've skimmed the comments, but I didn't see any passionate advocacy for copyright laws. If there's rules we all need to comply with, it can be upsetting to see others proudly not do it and get away with it because they're rich.
That has little to do with whether the rules were sound in the first place. It's more about fairness. And I've found "hackers" to be nothing if not fair - in a "chaotic good" way perhaps.
- tgma 2y agoSo you define "fairness" as always following the rules as is. That's objectively false. Many historical examples.
- fhd2 2y agoNo, not really. I'd say it's more about the spirit than the letter of the law.
- sfink 2y agoIt sounded more like defining fairness as having the rules apply equally to everyone in practice. Which is a pretty decent definition, IMHO.
- tgma 2y agoThe reality is that small companies also have advantages in not following the law in its strictest sense than big ones in some areas mainly because no one cares about them. Ignoring that dimension, here's another possibility: it is very possible that the utilization of AI and the licensing structure that Schmidt predicts here will increase the total licensing revenue that copyright holder pockets in aggregate despite their resistance today. It could be a win-win in the end. Wouldn't that be more than fair?