🇳🇱
Putting Putin in Pudding would please me greatly.
@freemo Would you still eat it or are you pleased with inedible pudding? :-)
@admitsWrongIfProven Only after I cook it to disinfect it and kill putin in the process.
@admitsWrongIfProven Two rules to cannabilism:
1) Make sure whoever you eat is evil
2) Cook them well!
@freemo Wonderful, not it is an actual Quote. Already bookmarked it, let's see how soon i get to use it!
If by that you mean people who support some sense of copyright law (though perhaps not in its current form).. and also assuming you dont mean patents... then hunt me, cause I do think copyright law is needed to function as a society.
@freemo @lonelyowl Probably meant copyright extremists, since a reasonable copyright is unknown to date.
Who will take "fossil fuel advocate" and "javascript advocate"?
what do you mean "reasonable copyright is unknown to date" you mean no one supports copyright law without being extremist?
@freemo @lonelyowl If you are interested in a more detailed view, i would add that fair use seems to be hard to do in most of the world. I can see that tech companies are a big factor by censoring a lot without due examination, but i would hold against that that lawmakers should really be measured by how thoroughly they protect the weak, not the strong.
(-> lots of takedowns of fair use like satire or critizism)
Additionaly, extending copyrights far beyond the death of the original creator has happened multiple times, this is also quite extreme. The only counterexample i can think of in the recent past was the likeness of a certain chinese public figure, but only without clothes, since the version with the red shirt still belongs to disney corp. afaik.
In conclusion, i look at the state of things and not calling out singular people who say "some copyright should exist". The extremists meant sit in political offices.
Protection should be universal, it should not favor the weak or the strong. You should not be punished for being strong by having less protection
That aside, copyright just means that something I created cant be stolen, and yes that should exist beyond death. The fact that copyright doesnt protect Ideas themselves makes it totally fair to me.
Patents are the bigger issue for me as they protect ideas and that can be far more problematic.
@freemo @lonelyowl I think there is a misunderstanding: i meant to imply that the weak (single person that does derived satire content for example) are protected a lot less.
I do not understand what you mean by protecting beyond death. Do you want your works to die with you? Pharao Freemo does sound impressive, i'll give you that.
Fair use for satire is very well protected, much more so than any other form of fair use. Its the only form of fair use you can profit off of for example.
@freemo @lonelyowl The point is that this protection you mention is ineffective. I have seen a lot of examples where it failed in the YTP category, i am sure there are many more.
This is actually what i meant by lacking protections for the weak:
Tech companies like alphabet are beholden to take down what is not lawful, but their unchecked takedowns of lawful material is near impossible for the individual to combat - and there are no protections in place against that!
So, censorship on a non-state level, if you will. Perfectly ok with copyright law, but the other direction is missing, which may be new today, but long known and all i see is inaction.
Current status quo is pretty extremist, i think.
Like, i had an ipad a while ago and when i was setting it up it offered me to agree with apple's terms of service. They read something like "you own a device, but don't own the software, so we can do with it whatever we want".
Technically, my ipad wasn't mine, i just leased it in perpetuity. This is insane 🥶
@lonelyowl @freemo Completely agree. A lot of tech is leased by applying tricks instead of owned. A lot coming together, like unsafe-by-default software development, triggering frequent mandatory updates. Monopolys which strongly limit choices and squelch competition.
Copyright is one of the weapons used to fight against ownership, but not the only one.
Thats not a copyright thing. Copyright isnt preventing you from flashing the firmware, that would be perfectly legal and cant be stopped by copyright. In fact copyright law cant even stop you from reverse engineering the existing software and hacking it.
The EULA itself that you signed is what is stopping you. That isnt related to copyright in any meaningful way.
I personally prefer no copyright at all, it's a delusional concept.
"If you're use MUH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY to do something useful you are going to jail" seriously, this is nonsense.
Some pirate parties offer a limited copyright laws, which is a decent compromise.
Seeing as copyright doesnt protect ideas it seems perfectly rasonable you shouldnt have the right to steal my actual work. Like you can write a book with all my ideas in it but written from scratch and its not a copyright issue. You just cant steal my book and sell it directly.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Something I own is mine and not yours.
@freemo @lonelyowl I think i heard of an idea of an inalienable personal copyright... not sure of the details anymore, but such a construct could do away with the glaring problems that exist. Can't sell the right, exploitation beyond all reasonable expectations becomes much harder.
Im not sure i see any glaring problems with most copyright law personally.
@freemo New quote:
"Cannibalism is ok, as long as the one being eaten is cooked thoroughly" - freemo