merc

@merc@sh.itjust.works

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

merc,

It’s tricky. Sometimes changing things truly is a creative act. A big portion of Disney’s portfolio is from retelling European fairy tales: Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Little Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, etc. It would be hard to argue that they added nothing of value when they remade those fairy tales. In many cases, people wouldn’t recognize the original stories because Disney changed so much.

OTOH, it seems like bullshit when tiny elements are changed. For example, the Conan-Doyle estate has sued because although Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain, they said that was only the stories where he was aloof and analytic. They said that in stories published in the 1920s he was more capable of empathy, so any depiction of Holmes where he was empathetic infringed on their copyright.

If I were on a jury deciding this sort of thing, I’d require that there be something brand new. For example, Beauty and The Beast is public domain, and as long as someone is making an animated movie based on that story the default assumption should be that they’re inventing new aspects based on the public domain story, not based on the Disney movie. OTOH if they have an animated candle / candelabra, it’s reasonable to assume that infringes on the new character created by Disney.

merc,

Thirty years from publication.

The original was 14 years renewable for another 14. I like that better. It means that abandonware goes into the public domain faster, but it’s easy to renew a copyright if it’s still being used.

No exceptions.

I disagree. Exceptions for sports and software: shorter. Sports is most relevant when it’s live, and copyright-holders for sports content are much more vicious when it comes to taking down tiny clips of goals or something. So, make a special category that gives them extra protection when it comes to tiny clips in exchange for much shorter copyright terms. For software, it’s essential to be able to maintain old equipment, especially old industrial equipment. That soft of software could be used in power plants, medical equipment, water purification plants, etc. Companies are notoriously bad at keeping that stuff safe especially decades later. Instead, make it public domain faster.

merc,

Nope, just a massively overcrowded office building. The ventilation system could barely keep up. But, management made it clear to us that the reason for the open office layout was to encourage collaboration and foster creativity!

merc,

you’re stealing our potential revenue

Which is ridiculous. It’s like suing someone for tapping you on the shoulder while you’re deep in thought, claiming that you almost came up with a great invention but their interference meant you lost your train of thought. Therefore, by tapping you on the shoulder, they owe you millions of dollars of lost potential revenue from that invention.

In addition, you have to consider whether they’re morally justified in receiving that revenue. Say someone manages to bribe the government so that they get paid $1 every time someone says “shazam”. If you say “shazam” and don’t pay them, they lose $1 in potential revenue. But, is this potential revenue that they are morally justified in collecting? Copyright law is just as ridiculous as “shazam” law. In both cases the government came up with a rule that allows someone to collect revenue simply because the government says so.

IMO the entertainment industry has ridiculously warped copyright. It used to be that copyright was a 14 year term, renewable for another 14 years if the author was alive. Under that rule, Forrest Gump would just have had its copyright expire. That seems pretty reasonable. It cost them $55 million to produce, and it brought in $678 million, it’s probably mostly done making money for them. Time for their rights to expire, right? Nope, they get to keep their monopoly until 2114. It’s fucking ludicrous.

Copyright is supposed to be a balance between what’s good for people creating something, and the general public. The creator is given a short-term monopoly as an incentive to create, that’s how they benefit. The public benefits because after a short time that creation becomes public. The alternative is no copyright, where creators need to be paid up-front by someone like a patron, and what they create becomes public immediately. The patronage system is responsible for all kinds of magnificent art like most classical music, the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. The argument for copyright is that the patronage system wasn’t good enough, and the public could benefit even more by allowing a short monopoly for the creator. But, with the lobbying of the entertainment cartel, the public benefit is far worse. You now still effectively have the patronage system controlling what art gets made (the entertainment cartel), they then also keep that art from the public for more than a century.

So, yeah. Fuck copyright.

merc,

Same with copyright theft

Is this when you steal someone’s copyright and collect licensing fees posing as the legitimate copyright holder?

They didn’t steal from you directly

Or indirectly.

still caused harm.

Maybe, maybe not. But no theft occurred.

merc, (edited )

If it’s theft, it’s theft. If it’s fraud, it’s fraud. It could be either. But “wage theft” is not copyright infringement, which is not theft.

Here’s what California’s Department of Industrial Relations says:

Wage theft is a form of fraud

www.dir.ca.gov/fraud_prevention/Wage-Theft.htm

merc,

What part of that statement suggests that the artist no longer has the original art? As stated, no theft occurred.

merc,

Yes, which is not theft. It’s not murder either. Nor is it blasphemy. It’s just copyright infringement.

merc,

Freelancers may be upset if they’re mistreated, but that doesn’t mean they get to declare they were murdered, or that they were raped, or any other crime that didn’t occur. Theft has a specific definition, and fraud is not the same thing as theft.

merc,

Copyright infringement isn’t theft, that’s the main point. It’s breaking a rule that the government created giving people a temporary (now extremely long term, but temporary) right to control the spread of ideas. Whether or not you approve of that law is beside the point. The point being, theft is as old as the ten commandments, if not older. Copyright is a new thing that’s only a few centuries old.

merc, (edited )

No, we’re not talking about the users. (And the polite term is incel.)

merc,

“Neat, what’s it called?” and they said “it’s called a gif”

Yeah, and then we all assumed it was pronounced “gif” not “jif” because the only other word with the letters “gif” was “gift” and that had a hard g. Later on, someone claimed it was supposed to be pronounced “jif”, but we all laughed at that idea and kept using the correct pronunciation.

We didn’t debate the pronunciation because it had been given a name

Neither did we, it was a hard g. There was no debate. Sure, some people claimed it was supposed to be a soft g, but we all laughed at that idea because it was ridiculous.

We didn’t debate the pronunciation because it had been given a name, the same way you don’t ask a person you just met “Shouldn’t ‘Bob’ be pronounced with a long ‘o’ like the very similar name ‘Job’?

I’m guessing you’re not multilingual then, because I am, and it’s extremely common to change how someone’s name is pronounced. People with the name “David” who are French are used to the French pronunciation of their name being “Dah-veed” but in English “Day-vid”. French people pronounce “Bob” as “Bub”. It’s good to allow people to slightly change how your name is pronounced because it flows better in their language. If they have to pause every time your name comes up to adapt how it’s said, it just makes things more difficult.

As for “gif”, if someone pronounced it as “jif”, we giggled a bit, but that’s it. It was only if someone was really insistent that it had to be a soft g that we really laughed. Some people tried to claim that the creator of the format had wanted a certain pronunciation, but we knew that didn’t matter.

Language is a function of communication, and better communication is what enabled humans to transfer knowledge

Exactly, and part of good communication is good pronunciation, because if you mispronounce things it makes it harder for people to understand you. If you insist on using a nonsensical pronunciation then you’re just trying to make it hard to communicate with you.

merc,

There are, there are just exceptions. For example, an e at the end of the word is silent. I’m certain you can give me a word where it’s not, but there are at least six in this paragraph alone where it is.

One of the most common words with a final “e” in that paragraph is “the” which not only has a final “e” sound, but has two different final “e” sounds depending on the context: “the end” uses a /ði/ pronunciation but “the word” uses a /ðə/ pronunciation. English is very stupid.

But, I agree with your assessment. English has rules, or at least patterns. “G” is most often hard, not soft, because “J” is available for the soft version, but there’s no alternative for the hard version. English tends to follow patterns, and “gift” has a hard g, and it (and words based on it) are the only ones that start with “gif”, so every “gif” word is hard. Because “t” (unlike “e”) can’t change the sounds before it, the pattern says that “gif” should have a hard “g”.

If it were “gir”, then there would be more debate. The word “giraffe” has a soft “g” but “girl” has a hard one, so the pattern is more muddy.

Also, people who coin words don’t get to decide how they’ll be pronounced. They can certainly try, but they’ll often lose. There are plenty of words in English borrowed from other languages that not only sound nothing like the original language, but that sound nothing like they’d sound if they were English words. For example, “lingerie”. It’s a French word, but the English pronunciation sounds nothing like a French word. In fact, if someone just sounded out the word as if it were an English word, they’d probably get much closer to the French pronunciation than the awful “lawn-je-ray” which is the current accepted English pronunciation (though, they’d probably assume a hard “g” sound).

In this case, it’s too bad that Steve Wilhite didn’t have a background in linguistics or he would have realized that people would see “gif” and assume a hard “g”. It was a losing fight from the start because he either didn’t understand the assumptions people would have when they saw those letters, or he thought that somehow he could successfully fight the tide all by himself.

merc,

Lah-seer. You can’t forget that the “e” comes from “emission”, not say “entropy” or something.

merc,

Looking at how a word is spelled always takes second place to where it comes from.

Where it comes from matters less than historic pronunciations.

“Lawn-jer-ay” is how most of the English word pronounces “lingerie” even though that’s nothing like how it’s pronounced in French, nor is it anything like what you’d pronounce if you sounded out those letters assuming it was an English word.

“Lieutenant” is pronounced completely differently in the UK vs the US. It’s etymology is also French, but neither English pronunciation is at all close to the French. Somehow the British get an “f” sound in there, which can’t be explained by spelling or etymology, and somehow the American pronunciation turns “ieu” into an “oo” sound.

As for “gif”, the “aol and compuserve” thing shows the problem: text based forums. The first time people encountered the word was by reading it. As an unfamiliar word, they mostly went with the common English rule of finding similar words. In this case, the only other words with “gif” are “gift” and words based on “gift”. Since that has a hard G, from the very start people have been using the hard “G” sound.

merc,

Linus is the one who got a workable thing out in the public’s hands. He didn’t even want to name it Linux, but someone came up with that name and it stuck.

The GNU project did a lot of great things, but ultimately they weren’t able to get a full-fledged operating system out that people could use, so they lost the opportunity to name it. It really shouldn’t matter to them though. GNU is well known, its philosophies are critical to how the free software and open source communities work, it was basically a massive success in the way almost no other volunteer non-commercial projects ever are.

But tagging “GNU/” in front of Linux is dumb.

merc,

That doesn’t change the chemistry.

merc,

Probably. Maybe Gentoo is the one where you get the furnace and various molds for various tools, but you have to cast the tools yourself.

merc,

So, you know some people who were in a mass shooting, but they lived. If they know some people who died in a mass shooting that’s two degrees of separation between you and a mass shooting death.

As for the mass shootings this week, they include a convenience store robbery, something that seems to be a murder-suicide where someone killed their family, a shootout over a stolen car, shots at a house party. And, in only 2 of those cases (the 5 dead in a house, and the rampage in Maine) were more than 1 person killed. These all technically qualify as mass shootings, but the rampage in Maine is the only kind we really think of as being a typical mass shooting.

It’s far too many. There’s no question about that. It’s also absurd how much more frequent it is in the US compared to other places. On the other hand, the US has a population of 330 million people. So, while the odds of dying in a mass shooting are higher in the US than any other developed country in the world, it’s hardly a warzone. The vast majority of people in the US will not be in a mass shooting ever. Most people will never be shot in their lives. And tourists shouldn’t avoid the US out of a fear of being involved in a mass shooting. Yes, it’s much more likely in the US than in say Japan. But, the overall odds are low.

merc,

A lot compared to other countries, but not so many that a tourist would have to worry about it, especially if they stick to touristey areas.

If someone decided to go into certain neighbourhoods in certain cities, especially while looking like a tourist, they could get in trouble. But, not visiting the US because you’re afraid of getting shot is like not being willing to swim anywhere in the Atlantic ocean because you’re afraid of being bitten by a shark. In both cases, the danger is minimal unless you ignore the warning signs.

merc,

People who live in a community where you can store your airplane in a garage and then commute from your garage to the runway aren’t going to partially own a plane. What would be the point in having that kind of a property but not being able to use it because you only got to see your plane one week per month?

Not every private pilot has a $100k hobby, but anybody who buys a house with a taxiway going up to it almost certainly owns their own plane, and their hobby is not cheap.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #