That’s awesome, I thought the GOP would win in my home state in regards to furthering their baseless attacks on abortion rights. I’m happy that they were rebuffed this time.
Some of them think that this is how the glorious revolution happens and they don’t care how many die for it, especially since they rarely think that they might be one of them.
Exactly! AI should be able to train on anything and regurgitate any and every piece of art imaginable! We don’t need artists! We can just copy everything with no recourse!
(/s if it wasn’t obvious. Lemmy is full of short-sighted dunderheads that fail to see the world with any nuance)
Let’s say you write a novel. It’s really really good. But no one reads it because no one ever hears about it.
Later, I stumble upon your novel and recognize how great it is. Then I republish it verbatim, except with my name as the author. I am much better at business and marketing than you, so it goes viral. I receive millions in sales, am tapped to produce a movie version, and win a Pulitzer for it.
Is that fair? Or should you have some rights in all of this since it was your copy?
The current system doesn’t protect small writers either. Look at the amount of money plagiarism gets you, with copyright law in effect.
And
at the stage where you’re big enough for copyright to effectively protect you, provable publication dates take care of that problem through reputation. If you become known(read: found out) as a plagiarist, you get the boot from the public zeitgeist, never to receive public money again.
Copyright only protects the Mouse’s bottom line, and strangleholds creativity.
You can have plagiarism law distinct from copyright.
That way, the original author will always be mentioned as a source in the derivative works and it is highly unlikely they will receive no attention should your derivative work become popular.
That’s going to be very difficult to achieve. Anything below the Berne convention is a legal impossibility.
What I think should happen, is that digital preservation should become a recognized fair use.
For example, digital content should be offered without DRM and at minimum price to recognized libraries for archival purposes.
If this is not done, the libraries may break the DRM themselves.
As soon as the copyright holder stops offering the content at reasonable prices to the public, the libraries are free to lend out the DRM-free content to the public.
And when the copyright term expires and the works enter the public domain, the libraries may immediately offer the DRM-free copies to the public.
The advantage of such a scheme is that it only requires one country to legally mandate it. And that country will not be in violation of the Berne convention or other treaties.
I have to wonder how neighboring states will handle 50% of their women emigrating to Kansas? I mean if you’re that close to a state whose judiciary is actually working like it’s supposed to, why not move?
if copyright wasn't a thing, disney would just re-publish everything any independent artist ever made as their own, and then probably use their unfathomable leverage to bully any platform hosting the original artist's work into not doing so
If copyright wasn’t a thing, Disney would be broke from lack of sales.
Disney exists to horde things in their vault. There is a reason they constantly fight to push back expiration dates, because copyright benefits them far more than no copyright ever could.
If copyright goes, it's a free-for-all. Disney wins in that scenario, because they have more resources to spend on getting their media out there.
Yes, disney abuses their leverage in the current system, but they'd abuse their leverage in any system. And them abusing their leverage in a system without copyright is significantly worse for independent artists than them abusing their leverage in a system with it.
No, they would not. If they would win from it, they would fight for it instead of fighting to stop it.
We would win because we have free access and use to all human creative works.
There is a reason these companies attack places like the Internet Archive, and it’s not because it the IA helps them make more profit and control others works.
they would fight for it instead of fighting to stop it
Your argument is that Disney expanding copyright protections proves that copyright benefits them.
But Disney isn't expanding copyright protections in a way that benefits anybody but themselves. They're abusing their power in the existing system, just as they would in any system.
If it helps, forget about the literal Disney corporation. There will always be some corporation that exists with deeper pockets than any independent creator, because copyright isn't the only reason that corporations exist. It doesn't have to be Disney who steals your work, republishes it, and buries the original. Any corporation with more money than scruples can do it.
You publish a book. Disney publishes that book the next day, because they can afford to have people on payroll whose job it is to literally just scout out new books so that they can publish them themselves.
Me, a book enjoyer, is going to my local bookshop. I ask what's new, and I'm told about Disney's new book. I'm not told about your new book because after all it is the exact same book, and Disney has threatened the store to withdraw all business if they sell anybody's books but theirs.
I buy Disney's book. You get no money. You become poor and destitute.
How does a lack of copyright help you in this instance?
Because you invested your time, effort and money to create this piece of art. Why on earth would anybody decide to create art if it was a guarantee that they'd die in a gutter?
In your anarchist utopia, maybe an artist can thrive. But we'd have to get all the way there first.
And in every step from where we are to where you want to get to, the artist is significantly worse off. You're just letting perfect be the enemy of good.
I appreciate that, and equally that there are really good artists who can not afford to create and survive on their work, without it. Surely there's a reasonable balance to be had, and megacorporations can be made to respect that balance (in theory), while also paying livable wages. In practice, it would require honest courts, lawyers, and politicians, so there's that.
At the same time, everyone can profit from your work and you can’t do anything about it. And big businesses, having more capital than you or I, would abuse that to their benefit like they do the current copyright system. But at least the current system gives small copyright owners some semblance of protection and an avenue to contest abuse. Not having copyright would give a creator no avenue to stop someone else abusing their hard work.
Disney wins in that scenario, because they have more resources to spend on getting their media out there.
As… Opposed to now?
If Disney does plagiarize small artists’ work, and becomes known for it, they take a reputation hit, and the artist gets an explosion of exposure, as long as it is provable he made the original story. (Disney making million-dollar budget movies of your OC, isn’t even that bad for you, to be honest, but let’s assume that it doesn’t market the fuck out of your small artist story. In real life, stories are not in competition.)
If Disney doesn’t, then it’s an undeniable positive for worldwide creativity.
The only thing copyright protects, is big companies’ exclusive right to public-consciousness characters.
As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none.
Why would the artist get an explosion of exposure when Disney's edition of the book was significantly more widely publicised, so everybody who might be interested in it already bought it from Disney.
The literal best case scenario here is that you have equal marketing, in which case Disney gets 50% of the sales and you get 50% of the sales. In what world is cutting your potential revenue in half a win for creators?
A “truly small” creator, would get , I dunno, let’s say 5% of Disney’s marketed sales, after being stolen from, from being known as the guy Disney stole from. Which would be enormously more than if he only had his “truly small” marketing.
A more successful and known creator, who would market himself more broadly on his own, would not be easy to steal from, since it would be quick enough for the stealing to be found out, to dampen Disney sales.
and irrelevant little asideAlso about this, > As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none. Guns give some recourse to poor people, against the rich, because anyone could use a gun. Guns allow the rich to equip their personal security teams, with guns. Guns are not helping the poor, and neither does copyright.
If we did ever get away from copyright we’d have a very different funding model for artistic creation. More patronage, patreon, and tipping based and less payment per sale. Artists, or groups of artists, would create and share their work, and people would direct money towards those they enjoyed the most. Physical copies of anything would decline in importance with all art available for free download, and would be sold and costed more based on the effort needed to manufacture that physical object than anything to do with the original creator or creators.
I don’t think anyone would say that American news media is healthy, but that is how a copyright fee media landscape would look. No one pays for media anymore, so the media becomes advertising. If we are lucky, we only get creative media turned into commercials for product. If we are unlucky, creative media becomes a new tool to sell Christian-fascism because no one else is willing to fund big movies.
Fuck Texas, residents of the state can keep their fucking non-competes if they love them so fucking much… elsewhere let’s move ahead with this fucking awesome policy.
If your company has PTO hours and you leave your job in Texas they don’t require you get paid out those hours so they are just lost. My coworker learned that. Absolutely need better worker protections across the board and Non-competes getting tossed is huge.
They said “choosing,” which is the key word in their statement. Some people don’t have a choice like you said, but that’s really just a matter of the push/pull forces of migration at this point.
Yea, I honestly don’t know what low income folks and kids can do - it’s such a regressive place but if you’re stuck there you just have to bear it and hope for change.
The original comment I was responding to was talking about PTO reclamation which is, sadly, a pretty white collar concern.
Fuck Texas. Anytime I hear people complain about “Democrat policies” around me, I just wish they’d move to their utopia in Florida, Texas, or any of the other “who’ll come up with the stupidest bullshit freedom-encroaching laws next” red state.
Workers leaving states like CA for Texas are like anti-vaxxers who think vaccines are stupid because they don’t know anyone with polio.
If our country survives for another couple decades, they’ll be so proud of themselves for “inventing” all the same worker protections they left behind. But not before experiencing their economic polio first hand.
The case is in US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, so appeals would be heard in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit—which is generally regarded as one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country.
In April, the FTC issued a rule that would render the vast majority of current noncompete clauses unenforceable and ban future ones. The agency said that noncompete clauses are “an unfair method of competition and therefore a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act,”
…
“The issue presented is whether the FTC’s ability to promulgate rules concerning unfair methods of competition include the authority to create substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition,” Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote.
Brown acknowledged that “the FTC has some authority to promulgate rules to preclude unfair methods of competition.” But “the text, structure, and history of the FTC Act reveal that the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority with respect to unfair methods of competition under Section 6(g),” she wrote.
At this point I think it’s unlikely we’re going to avoid bloodshed in this election - pride is low because a lot of people are fucking terrified… especially with the Supreme Court
If you live on planet earth unfortunately you do have stakes in it. The US is still powerful enough to influence the life of everyone around the world.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.