5 ms·

Anything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.

by OutOfHere 4mo ago

tadfisher 4mo ago
This bill very much does not do that. It does the opposite, in fact. I encourage you to re-read the article.
- OutOfHere 4mo ago
  I understand it risks adding unpredictable political corruption to the process, but I feel that such unpredictable corruption is exactly what it takes to gradually destroy something in an indirect way. It is not clear to me what their political agenda is. Overall it might be good for AI if the goal is to scrape freely and use it for AI training.
  - browningstreet 4mo ago
    This position makes it impossible to discuss these things.
  - eli_gottlieb 4mo ago
    When I aim to accomplish something, to destroy some institution, I tend to favor the direct way, because it relies on fewer intermediate points of failure than the indirect way.
    - quantummagic 4mo ago
      What we favor, and what is possible, often diverge.
palmotea 4mo ago
> [Copyright] is a societal evil. Such an extreme and emotional statement makes me think you've never really thought it through. For instance: without copyright the GPL is nothing. Also without copyright, all of the profit made on creative works (of a perhaps smaller pie) would get be kept by distributors like Amazon or Netflix. Authors wouldn't get a dime anymore, it'll all go to the likes of Bezos.
- nullc 4mo ago
  RMS will happily tell you that he'd trade enforcability of the GPL for the non-existence of copyright.
  - palmotea 4mo ago
    > RMS will happily tell you that he'd trade enforcability of the GPL for the non-existence of copyright. Thankfully, RMS is not my guru. Copyright is a valuable legal technology. It should be reformed to curb abuses, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- armchairhacker 4mo ago
  > without copyright the GPL is nothing That’s ok, GPL’s entire purpose and only restriction is to prevent other copyrights. > without copyright, all of the profit made on creative works (of a perhaps smaller pie) would get be kept by distributors like Amazon or Netflix This is already true in most cases: companies own everything their employees create for them. And without copyright, studios would still pay artists, because that’s the only way art is created (which even rich people want, although you probably and I think their taste mostly sucks, so does everyone else’s…)
  - palmotea 4mo ago
    > That’s ok, GPL’s entire purpose and only restriction is to prevent other copyrights. You sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure it's "entire purpose" is to keep open source code open. > And without copyright, studios would still pay artists, because that’s the only way art is created Hate to break it to you, but that's just not true. But you know what would make that true? Abolishing copyright.
    - armchairhacker 4mo ago
      "Prevent other copyrights" = "keep open source open" Your second point seems to agree: if copyright was abolished, people (even rich) still want art, so studios would still end up paying artists, from patronage or some other system.
tgv 4mo ago
Last time someone uttered something similar, I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it to you: what entitles you to free access to any song, movie or book?
- RobotToaster 4mo ago
  What entitles you to use force to stop me creating a copy of something?
  - tgv 4mo ago
    Not me, the state. That is significantly different. The reason is damaging someone's livelihood in the cases I mentioned. Or large scale economic damage in case you're copying money.
    - RobotToaster 4mo ago
      The fact that you use the state as a proxy changes little.
    - inigyou 4mo ago
      Should it be illegal to use a general purpose computing device because it damages Tim Cook's livelihood?
    - RiverCrochet 4mo ago
      The comparison with money is interesting but not equivalent to copyright infringement. The closest valid application of the concept of counterfeit to songs, for example, would involve using them to make media and its packaging look like any original packaging, and also try to sell it as the original. If you're not doing this there's no counterfeiture.
- armchairhacker 4mo ago
  Because it’s effectively free to copy. I want copyright to be completely abolished and patronage to re-become normal and common. Most of my favorite artists already distribute most of their work for free and rely on the latter.

Anything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.

tadfisher 4mo ago

This bill very much does not do that. It does the opposite, in fact. I encourage you to re-read the article.

OutOfHere 4mo ago
I understand it risks adding unpredictable political corruption to the process, but I feel that such unpredictable corruption is exactly what it takes to gradually destroy something in an indirect way. It is not clear to me what their political agenda is. Overall it might be good for AI if the goal is to scrape freely and use it for AI training.
- browningstreet 4mo ago
  This position makes it impossible to discuss these things.
- eli_gottlieb 4mo ago
  When I aim to accomplish something, to destroy some institution, I tend to favor the direct way, because it relies on fewer intermediate points of failure than the indirect way.
  - quantummagic 4mo ago
    What we favor, and what is possible, often diverge.

palmotea 4mo ago

> [Copyright] is a societal evil. Such an extreme and emotional statement makes me think you've never really thought it through. For instance: without copyright the GPL is nothing. Also without copyright, all of the profit made on creative works (of a perhaps smaller pie) would get be kept by distributors like Amazon or Netflix. Authors wouldn't get a dime anymore, it'll all go to the likes of Bezos.

nullc 4mo ago
RMS will happily tell you that he'd trade enforcability of the GPL for the non-existence of copyright.
- palmotea 4mo ago
  > RMS will happily tell you that he'd trade enforcability of the GPL for the non-existence of copyright. Thankfully, RMS is not my guru. Copyright is a valuable legal technology. It should be reformed to curb abuses, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
armchairhacker 4mo ago
> without copyright the GPL is nothing That’s ok, GPL’s entire purpose and only restriction is to prevent other copyrights. > without copyright, all of the profit made on creative works (of a perhaps smaller pie) would get be kept by distributors like Amazon or Netflix This is already true in most cases: companies own everything their employees create for them. And without copyright, studios would still pay artists, because that’s the only way art is created (which even rich people want, although you probably and I think their taste mostly sucks, so does everyone else’s…)
- palmotea 4mo ago
  > That’s ok, GPL’s entire purpose and only restriction is to prevent other copyrights. You sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure it's "entire purpose" is to keep open source code open. > And without copyright, studios would still pay artists, because that’s the only way art is created Hate to break it to you, but that's just not true. But you know what would make that true? Abolishing copyright.
  - armchairhacker 4mo ago
    "Prevent other copyrights" = "keep open source open" Your second point seems to agree: if copyright was abolished, people (even rich) still want art, so studios would still end up paying artists, from patronage or some other system.

tgv 4mo ago

Last time someone uttered something similar, I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it to you: what entitles you to free access to any song, movie or book?

RobotToaster 4mo ago
What entitles you to use force to stop me creating a copy of something?
- tgv 4mo ago
  Not me, the state. That is significantly different. The reason is damaging someone's livelihood in the cases I mentioned. Or large scale economic damage in case you're copying money.
  - RobotToaster 4mo ago
    The fact that you use the state as a proxy changes little.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    Should it be illegal to use a general purpose computing device because it damages Tim Cook's livelihood?
  - RiverCrochet 4mo ago
    The comparison with money is interesting but not equivalent to copyright infringement. The closest valid application of the concept of counterfeit to songs, for example, would involve using them to make media and its packaging look like any original packaging, and also try to sell it as the original. If you're not doing this there's no counterfeiture.
armchairhacker 4mo ago
Because it’s effectively free to copy. I want copyright to be completely abolished and patronage to re-become normal and common. Most of my favorite artists already distribute most of their work for free and rely on the latter.