Copyright must be abolished. The fact that anything created today will never enter the public domain within any of our livetimes proves that the system has failed. We have an obligation to exercise civil disobedience to protest the broken system. I will shed no tears for billionares caught up in the flack. They never shed a tear for the tens of thousands of people they screwed with expensive lawsuits, nor the billions they screwed out of their rightful inheritance of the collective works of humanity.
It's your obligation as a good citizen to pirate shit.
@sir What about the rightful inheritance of the grandchildren of an artist? They worked really hard to be the descendent of someone successful. Do you expect them to go out and work?
@sathariel and I applaud you for that
@sir Personally I absolutely agree about abolishing copyright.
However I prefer to encourage people to check out superb shows like Magus Elgar, The Red Panda Adventures, Man From Earth, Welcome to Night Vale, Expedition Sasquatch, The Bright Sessions, The Blender Open Movies, The Old Gods of Appalachia, etc, etc.
Hollywood (and BBC) deserves neither our money nor attention! Others do!
P.S. If you continue enjoying Dr Who, I have no grievance against Big Finish Productions.
@alcinnz I am 1000% in agreement that we should support producers of free culture
But I don't think we should stop at refraining from piracy. We should give them a deliberate signal that we refuse to play by their unjust rules, and play by our own instead.
@alcinnz I am also strongly in favor of paying artists for DRM-free releases like Bandcamp, or for supporting them via platforms like Patreon, LibrePay, etc.
@sir Fair enough.
But I do worry about the fact that piracy is being used to justify the worst of these laws. It's hard to say whether the signal's clearer avoiding them altogether or engaging in piracy.
Regardless I'm too busy enjoying and promoting non-mainstream entertainment to pay attention to the mainstream!
@alcinnz @sir You know, I've enjoyed your recs and think they definitely have merit over most cultural products - but are they as free as they could be? total overturn of copyright would mean derivations and redistribution of the source material would be allowed. I'm not sure these podcasts do that.
Not to nitpick - just curious about your thoughts. Keep doing what you're doing in whatever case.
1. Few are CC-licensed, or equivalent. But nevertheless they clearly don't have any problem with people downloading & sharing them, though it's rarely clear how far that stretches.
2. I tend not to enjoy hearing much "pop culture" when I'm trying to escape into a less culturally hostile one. So yeah, there's a reason I shy away from derivations...
@lunchgirl I'll check it out!
@sir it's so turbo dumb that I *can't* legally pay for content due to region locking. If I want to watch certain TV shows I don't even get the option to pay into their corrupt system; I'm locked out if I try to follow the law but I can consume the content via piracy.
That's so fucked.
Also, why can Mick Jagger live off of 60 year old accolades while the singer-songwriter in your local bar needs a day job? Is that an OK system?
Pirating books will not hurt billionaires.
It will hurt the writers, nearly all who which live close to poverty.
Lost sales mean writers don't get contracts for books, and they don't get advances, and they end up doing something other than writing.
Is copyright fucked up?
But pirating doesn't hurt the people you want to hurt.
@sir you want to hurt billionaires?
Support indigenous cultures asserting the rights to their stories and ideas so Disney can't just lift them and repackage them to the world under their own copyright.
Give money to Black, indigenous, and queer writers, but respect their rights in their works.
Limit the length of copyright. Twenty to thirty years allows a creator to make a living, but Disney don't make a fortune.
@emma there is some truth to this, though I don't entirely agree. But I'm mainly talking about movies and TV shows, which are from the outset working on budgets of millions of dollars. With books, you get a physical copy (which has material value) that you *own* and can share with your friends. It's a lot different.
And stand up for Representative Omar's call for:
* vote by mail
* and a right to income, housing, and health care
Obamacare wasn't perfect, but it was a godsend for the writers I know.
Imagine what creators could do if they didn't worry about healthcare, the rent, and food/phone/electricity
@tn5421 I'll do you one better in a couple of blog posts
@sir Just because something is malfunctioning doesn't mean it should be abolished.
I think making the copyright duration much shorter, and making it impossible to transfer copyright, would be better than getting rid of it altogether.
Alternatively, you could replace copyright with some copyleft legislation. I do like the GPL source releases from phone and router vendors.
>You wouldn't need GPL if there wouldn't be copyright
Even without copyright, vendors could take publicly available source code (part of the commons), modify it, build firmware based on it, and then ship it in binary form on their locked-down phones and routers without providing you the source code.
Copyright and patents aren't broken; they're fundamentally incompatible with reality.
Ideas are neither excludable nor rivalrus, the two prerequisites for a 'private good' e.g., something that can be owned. This is not an obtuse point of anarchist philosophy, it's econ 101 stuff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good
@sir I fully agree. In particular in the context of scientific literature: these copyright laws are breaking the principles of freedom of knowledge, which should be fundamental. Every citizen should have access to every scientific article.
@felix @0 @sir if you believe that then you don't understand the purpose of the GPL. The distinguishing feature of the GPL is it's viral nature: requiring the release of source when binaries are distributed and attaching to modifications to require sharing by those who benefit from the code
Without copyright, on what grounds could you require people to publish modifications to code you released?
@sir tbh, the fact copyright means basically "you don't have the right to copy" in most cases is already screwed up in many ways, and while I understand that getting paid for your work is important, in some cases the creators aren't being paid correctly, I'd much rather have a way to pay the ones that did work directly, not to mention that copyright lasts so long that it's just pointless unless you have a monopoly to keep and have no backup plan, which is a bad thing already.
@sir it is our obligation to finally add Nvidia support to Sway
It's because they waste their resources to make NVIDIA proprietary driver-specific stuff.
Many other things too, like hardware-accelerated Firefox, don't work on NVIDIA proprietary drivers.
@sir Copyright under commercial aspects is just fine. It just should not extend to the private sector.
Also patents are fine. But not 50 or longer years. Having a patent to compensate scientific research is a nice way to ensure innovation.
Both concepts are just perverted by american turbo capitalism.
@comrad @sir No US patent extends beyond 20 years. And patents do support innovation, but not the way you seem to be arguing. Patents give people an incentive to share information about how things work; THAT is good for people who wish to build upon those things. Without patents, people keep more of their innovations secret and the rate of progress slows.
It's clearer to say that patents encourage information-sharing which supports innovation
@sir I don’t know for your american common law based copyright, but our german/european Urheberrecht [right of the creator] should be reformed, not abolished. The strongest reason for me is, that it not only protects the financial rights of the creator (and others) this part needs reform, but also the Persönlichkeitsrechte [the connection between creator and work. This latter part is very important and often forgotten about. This allows creators to limit e.g which parties can use their works.
@sir money and ownership is what is wrong with the system... Time is only true value...
@sir I completely agree in spirit, though I don't think we should get rid of the concept of copyright. But restrictions should absolutely be drastically relaxed. But, then, I'm not too versed in copyright law either
@sir One legit question: What are your thoughts on a shorter copyright term (like just 2 years)?
1. *Corporate copyright should be abolished
2. Personal copyright should be reverted to 20 years, requiring registration, with one renewal if the work is being actively distributed
The original system protected actual human authors from abuse by publishers, let's bring that back and let the people who actually create the work be the ones to control it
@sir especially because patents and copyright only protects huge companies and rich people, they can just fight the patents/copyright of small companies, artists and such again and again, draining their resources with expensive lawsuits. So these laws do the exact opposite of what people claim they're supposed to do.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!