Notices by Jess (eletious@eattherich.club)

@Moon @ageha Deleting my post would be a great idea, and probably better for me in the long run, but unfortunately I understand both that the OP has less to do with the mechanics of crime than it does the impact, and that copyrighting artistic works in the system we currently operate within actually does, to a certain extent, protect individuals who create those works. The system sucks! It's bad! But until we abolish capitalism, artists need some way to prevent giant corporations from eating their lunch. So I have to post something.

Which sucks, because you're so blatantly engaging in bad faith arguments on the Internet.

My point there is that Aaron Swartz didn't actually harm anyone. Nobody was displaced from their home because he was downloading "precious free files" - the network just wasn't working as well as it should have been. Professors at MIT didn't have to start posting fundraisers online to pay their rent because some kid wanted information to be free. Research teams weren't joining tent cities because the network slowed down. But those things HAVE happened to artists and authors because of AI tech.

If all you can say is "A.S. isn't Big Tech!" or "Big Tech didn't kill A.S.!" when people complain that the government bullied someone TO DEATH for copyright infringement, but hasn't done the same to corporations building plagiarism machines, then you're not actually reading the post and thinking about what it means -- you're missing the forest for the trees.

These situations are absolutely comparable, and doing so highlights the contrast of the "harm done" to "punishment" ratio between individuals and corporations. Distracting from that point by bikeshedding does protect corporations from criticism, even if that's not your intent.

@Moon @Greg @ageha holy shit, you figured it out! if Aaron didn't want to commit suicide, he simply should have found a way to liberate educational materials without inconveniencing anyone! jesus fucking christ.

i don't know if you know that you're doing this, but you're simultaneously:
- defending MIT and USGov's decision to arrest and prosecute a young man for stealing educational and scientific materials, and threaten him with decades of jail time and millions of dollars in fines, because the gatekeeping of that information made the college and scientific publishing industry a LOT of money (even though researchers and authors only saw a fraction of that revenue)
- protecting corporations that are scraping every public Web service for materials copyrighted by (often) individual artists and authors with declared intent to create services that are capable of replacing the people who create art and literature, thereby destroying a revenue stream that keeps thousands of skilled professionals housed, from valid criticism.

@drudgesentinel every day i break the legs of my mind so that it can't leave it's desk

the idea that using open-source software opens you up to exploitation could hold weight in a world where keeping your business afloat didn't necessarily mean moving at light speed to keep up with the industry, and you could hire people on to make sure everything you make is secure while delivering features and getting customers.

and the idea that open source projects might just vaporize, leaving you in the dust, paints a picture of an industry that only sees critical software components as "worth funding" if the funds line the pockets of the board of directors.

how fucking bleak.

the absolute disrespect towards open source coming from tech journalists and groups like Hashicorp is staggering. open source raised you from diapers and you owe every experience you've had with technology more complex than a using fucking light switch to the open source movement. if open source isn't a good fit for your business, you're either invested in lying to uphold a belief system or value proposal, wrong, or doing something that isn't worth doing with computers.

@eris i mean i am a garbage disposal with poor taste but i can't say i agree on the subject of flavor or effect, this shit has me twacked the fuck out and reminiscing about childhood autumns as if i hadn't successfully repressed those memories or something

i think they put meth in Starbucks.

i brew light roast coffee like fucking synthetic motor oil, and it's fine. i drink a tiny Starbucks drink and im twitching and itching, trying to find the bugs under my skin.

how the fuck do people drink this regularly. i need answers