🇳🇱
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.
@freemo New quote:
"Cannibalism is ok, as long as the one being eaten is cooked thoroughly" - freemo
@admitsWrongIfProven Two rules to cannabilism:
1) Make sure whoever you eat is evil
2) Cook them well!
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.
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.
@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.