Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 03:50:49 JST feld
   How did we get to the point where people in tech are applauding copyright law? Isn't it the one thing we all rallied around years ago and came to an agreement that the current implementation of copyright is bad, not just for code but for everything?
   
   It doesn't matter if it's a book, movie, music, invention, medicinal breakthrough, or some new paradigm in programming: copyright is a racket that gives the original inventor far too much protection for too long and prevents competition, innovation, and improvements in manufacturing processes for way too long. It directly undercuts one of the good parts of capitalism and leaves us with mostly the shitty parts.
   
   RT: https://infosec.exchange/users/malwarejake/statuses/113840588664173206
   • Pissed Hippo and Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 03:55:53 JST feld

     in reply to
     What does copyright really get us? Waste. Lots of waste. Especially e-waste. Tons of products that cannot be repaired or reverse engineered.
     
     - insulin pumps that cannot be repaired
     
     - tractors that cannot be repaired
     
     - cars that cannot be repaired
     
     - printer ink cartridges that cannot be refilled
     
     - entire swaths of pop culture lost to the annals of history because nobody can figure out who owns the rights to it anymore so it disappears from society unless you've pirated it
     
     - software that's important, functional, but technically EOL and unusable anymore because the only computer it runs on is dead and the company that made it was gobbled up by another tech conglomorate and they hold the copyrights and patents but won't support or allow anyone to reverse engineer it or make it work on modern computers
     
     
     It's really hard to square having a big boner for copyright and caring about the environment / fighting against consumerism at the same time. The two aren't even close to being compatible.
     lainy and Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: like this.
     Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     narcolepsy and alcoholism :flag: (hj@shigusegubu.club)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 03:57:40 JST narcolepsy and alcoholism :flag:

     in reply to
     @feld we went from
     
     copyright exists to protect the authors
     
     to
     
     copyright exists to protect us from china
     
     to
     
     copyright exists to protect the shareholders
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:, Doughnut Lollipop 【記録係】:blobfoxgooglymlem: and feld like this.
   • Embed this notice
     MMS21 :blobcatkirby: (mms21@seal.cafe)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 04:12:24 JST MMS21 :blobcatkirby:

     in reply to
     Yeah. It's not used to protect the little guy anyway. It gets even more stupid when they use it to ban people from buying seeds and regrowing crops, forcing them to rely on the company for the seeds each harvest.
     
     I mean someone could make the argument that if you created a product, a another company could copy you and sell it, utilizing their brand and capability to produce the same product for less, and push you out the market by just making more of it, so your product doesn't appear on the shelves but do we ever see that happening? There's loads of books in the open domain and I've yet to hear about this phenomenon there.
     
     This book (see pic) I've been reading covers this. There's a great chapter at the beginning about how advancements with the steam engine were held back due to copyright.
     feld likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 04:21:03 JST feld

     in reply to

     • MMS21 :blobcatkirby:
     @MMS21
     
     seeds: yes, seed companies are evil. They'll send people out to tresspass on your fields to take samples of your crops to see if they accidentally were cross pollinated by the neighboring farm that is paying for the proprietary seed. Also they force you to destroy any seeds you may have produced each year so you have to buy all new from them.
     
     products: yeah there's a potential issue here where a little guy can make a product and then a big guy can knock it off because they can leverage their massive access to capital to build it at a scale you never could and distribute it beyond your reach. Oh wait that's basically what we see Amazon doing every day (when they're not just selling literal Chinese counterfeits) and nobody's holding them accountable for it lol
     
     I don't think the argument makes too much sense for e.g., books though. Like what, is someone gonna make a knockoff Lord of the Rings where the main character is named Drodo instead and he's not a hobbit he's a todget? "Moby Dick? We read Toby Rick when I was a kid..." I just can't really imagine this happening with things like books.
     
     Although it would allow fan-fiction to be published and that could get weird. But the easy way around that is for authors and publishers of original works to find a way to differentiate their products with like a "Nintendo Seal of Approval" type thing, right?
   • Embed this notice
     MMS21 :blobcatkirby: (mms21@seal.cafe)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 04:39:18 JST MMS21 :blobcatkirby:

     in reply to
     Wow I didn't know seed companies went that as to trespass far that's insane. Their lawyers probably put in the contract when they bought the seeds that's so scummy.
     
     Amazon and the likes probably threw a party when FTC Lina Khan left. Maybe the solution is to reduce the number of years you can hold a copyright because it is unfair when you've done all the hard work, R&D from the ground up only for Amazon to come in once they seen your idea become a commercial success.
     
     The point I was making about books is selling classical works and undercutting the original publishing house. I don't think we've see people mass producing Moby Dick or whatever and doing this. Or they could make a new Harry Potter book set in the same world with the same characters. People should be allowed to do that. Owning an idea is just dumb.
     
     btw Mickey Mouse is open domain now and we haven't seen films with this character appear, let alone reach 1% of success of disney, it's just knockoff backpacks for kids with this character that are being made. Sonic fans have been making fan games since forever and I've yet to see them announced at E3 or similar conventions, in these cases you never see a derivative product overtaking the original creators.
     
     The whole idea that copyright protects is for them and not us.
     feld likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 04:40:09 JST feld

     in reply to

     • MMS21 :blobcatkirby:
     @MMS21 it's only the original mickey mouse "steamboat willie" version, but we're seeing others! Have you seen the horror movies coming out of the UK like the ones based on Winnie the Pooh?
   • Embed this notice
     MMS21 :blobcatkirby: (mms21@seal.cafe)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 04:48:36 JST MMS21 :blobcatkirby:

     in reply to
     Yeah your right it's the original version only my bad. This is the first time I'm hearing of this movie, it looks like the generic low budget horror flick haha.
     feld likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 04:50:00 JST feld

     in reply to

     • MMS21 :blobcatkirby:
     @MMS21 I watched it, it was not the lowest budget horror. It was alright. I didn't like the vibe of the movie though. Just felt wrong.
     
     There are others coming: Peter Pan, Bambi, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty...
     
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twisted_Childhood_Universe
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 17:24:16 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @feld >copyright is a racket that gives the original inventor far too much protection for too long
     A copyrightable work is never an invention.
     
     It gives no protection - it gives what should be a temporary monopoly on distribution of the work to encourage the author to write more works.
     
     The issue with copyright is mainly due to excessively long terms that encourage authors to write one work and milk it forever, rather than writing more works.
     
     >and prevents competition, innovation, and improvements in manufacturing processes for way too long
     None of these things are prevented by copyright. Are you thinking of patent law?
     
     LLMs are a complete waste of time and resources that has no practical usages except for fraud, thus I don't see a problem if proprietary software LLMs were to be no longer permitted to be distributed or offered as SaaSS.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 17:38:06 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @feld >What does copyright really get us? Waste. Lots of waste. Especially e-waste. Tons of products that cannot be repaired or reverse engineered.
     Copyright has nothing to do with e-waste.
     
     Many e-waste products are only e-waste due to copyright infringement of the software they run and compliance with those copyright licenses (the GPLv2, GPLv3 and/or LGPLv2.1 ) would make those no longer e-waste.
     
     Copyright does not in fact restrict reverse engineering - it's typically contract law that is abused to try to do that.
     
     >- important groundbreaking medicines invented but will never be brought to market because it's not profitable enough
     That has nothing to do with copyright as copyright does not apply to medicines.
     
     Many drugs are discovered and patented up the wazoo, with some efficiency against a condition or infection (but require more work to saleable), but are not developed and brought to market because it's determined that the drug won't net billions from paypigs.
     
     >- insulin pumps that cannot be repaired
     A lot of the time that's only because the software on the pump has no source code and not necessarily because it's copyrighted and because the pump lacks schematics.
     
     >- tractors that cannot be repaired - cars that cannot be repaired
     The tractors and cars can be repaired just fine, it's just that the proprietary software will refuse to operate if it detects an unauthorized repair (even if the software wasn't copyrighted, it would still refuse to operate).
     
     >- printer ink cartridges that cannot be refilled
     Same as above except for re-filled.
     
     Some printer ink cartridges have been refilled by 3rd parties, which required flipping a bit in a microprocessor and it was ruled that flipping such bit did not infringe copyright.
     
     >- software that's important, functional, but technically EOL and unusable anymore because the only computer it runs on is dead >or allow anyone to reverse engineer it or make it work on modern computers
     If it's proprietary, chances are the software is not in fact important or functional.
     
     If you don't make the error of using proprietary software, you won't ever face that issue.
     
     With GNU you have the freedom to write replacement software to any proprietary software that works on modern computers without needing copyright permission.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 17:41:12 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • narcolepsy and alcoholism :flag:
     @hj @feld In fact;
     We went from;
     Copyright exists because we don't want you go wrongprinting books we don't like on that printing press.
     
     to
     
     Copyright exists to encourage authors to publish more works (at the benefit of society at large) via a temporary monopoly on distribution that eventually expires.
     
     to
     
     "copyright exists to protect the authors" (a lie).
     
     to
     
     "copyright exists to protect us from china" (a lie).
     
     to
     
     "copyright exists to protect the shareholders" (a lie).
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 17:53:33 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • MMS21 :blobcatkirby:
     @MMS21 @feld Confusing copyrights, patents and trademark law is disastrous; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
     
     >It's not used to protect the little guy anyway.
     It is correct that book publishers demand that authors hand over their copyright and it's mostly big businesses that applies for a patent and become the patent holder, but that results in monopolies, not protection.
     
     >It gets even more stupid when they use it to ban people from buying seeds and regrowing crops, forcing them to rely on the company for the seeds each harvest.
     That's an issue of a massive error in applying patent law, where it was ruled that replanting seeds is patent infringement because a big company said so.
     
     >I mean someone could make the argument that if you created a product, a another company could copy you and sell it, utilizing their brand and capability to produce the same product for less, and push you out the market by just making more of it, so your product doesn't appear on the shelves but do we ever see that happening?
     It does happen rarely with a little guy that comes up with a new product and even patents it - a big business takes a look and starts making that product and if the little guy tries to enforce the patent, the big guy goes; "well that's cute, but for that product we have this patent, and this patent and this patent and this one and I'm sure if we go back we'll find more. Why don't we cross license?" and the big guy gets another patent.
     
     Little guys don't have any ability to get their product on store shelf's, although they can sell via direct mail until the point they start get shaken down by patent aggressors.
     
     >There's a great chapter at the beginning about how advancements with the steam engine were held back due to copyright.
     If that book has that written, that book if full of many errors, as advancements in the steam engine were held back by patents and one infamous patent of ridiculously long duration.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 18:31:50 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • LisPi
     @lispi314 @feld True, but at least it can be used to protect free software by preventing it from being made proprietary.
   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 18:31:51 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @feld Copyright is a racket and setup to preserve obsolete business models that date from when information needed to be contained statically on physical artifacts and couldn't be trivially altered, copied or transmitted.
     
     It makes no sense to pay for copies rather than to pay the workers for their labor directly.
     
     (By the way, a patronage & artisan model had already existed prior, but it was harder to exploit by mercantilist and capitalist interests.)
   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Thursday, 13-Feb-2025 18:36:44 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     @Suiseiseki @feld That's true, but I think a (legal) hack to mitigate the harms of a malicious system is not preferable to fixing the problem at the root.
     
     Of course that'll take a while, so the hacks can (and indeed should) stay until they're obsoleted.
     翠星石 likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 09:50:38 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Nicholas Conrad
     @nicholas @feld >with IP laws
     There is no such thing as imaginary property laws; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
     There are trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret laws that are all totally different and are not property laws.
     
     >which it is even possible to apply private ownership
     Due to not being property laws, they do not apply any sort of ownership - they rather apply a monopoly.
     
     >no amount of legislators furiously writing in dusty tomes
     Legislators furiously writing in dusty tomes and courts can and do enforce monopolies - just because there's nothing physically preventing you from distributing copies does not mean a business and/or a court can't stop you from doing so.
   • Embed this notice
     Nicholas Conrad (nicholas@aklp.club)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 09:50:39 JST Nicholas Conrad

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     The issue with copyright is mainly due to excessively long terms that encourage authors to write one work and milk it forever, rather than writing more works.

     This line of criticism is of course true, but hardly the 'main' one.

     The state of Iowa once legislated an alternative value of Pi, yet all the circles in Iowa stayed the same shape. One could point out that the law didn't have the intended effect of making it easier for school children to calculate math problems involving Pi, but the main problem is that laws are just words written down on paper and they have no power to change the fundamental nature of mathematics.

     Similarly the main problem with IP laws is not that they are counterproductive to their stated goals (though they are), but that thoughts and ideas simply are not contained in the set of "private goods" over which it is even possible to apply private ownership. And no amount of legislators furiously writing in dusty tomes can make it so.

   • Embed this notice
     Nicholas Conrad (nicholas@aklp.club)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 12:21:10 JST Nicholas Conrad

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • LisPi

     They can't stop the signal Mal.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 12:21:10 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • LisPi
     • Nicholas Conrad
     @nicholas @feld @lispi314 The people who originally hosted such site were taken to court and charged, even though them hosting such kind of site was *not* illegal as per the countries laws.
     
     It's other people who continue to host the site and those people face the same legal risks (it seems the companies have backed off for the past several years, as the previous activities only taught more people of the existence of the site and caused more unauthorized copying to happen, not less - but they may change their mind in the future).
   • Embed this notice
     LisPi (lispi314@udongein.xyz)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 12:21:12 JST LisPi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Nicholas Conrad
     @Suiseiseki @feld @nicholas > just because there's nothing physically preventing you from distributing copies does not mean a business and/or a court can't stop you from doing so.
     
     Unless of course one believes they can fight the law and win. To that I say good luck.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 14:08:19 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • LisPi
     • Nicholas Conrad
     @nicholas @feld @lispi314 >and wrote those dumb laws
     As I wrote, no law in that country was violated by hosting that kind of site - you don't need to violate any law to be arrested in charged in some circumstances.
   • Embed this notice
     Nicholas Conrad (nicholas@aklp.club)'s status on Friday, 14-Feb-2025 14:08:20 JST Nicholas Conrad

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • LisPi

     Heros who will be remembered long after the names of the jackboot thugs who arrested them, and wrote those dumb laws, are lost to the sands of time.