neatchee

@neatchee@lemmy.world

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

neatchee,
neatchee,

wrong

no u

neatchee,

I don’t disregard anything based on where it came from, only its content

neatchee,

wrong

no u

neatchee,

Your ability to interpret hyperbole apparently isn’t testable either given that it seems to be non-existent

neatchee,

I don’t disregard anything based on where it came from, only its content

neatchee,

Your ability to interpret hyperbole apparently isn’t testable either given that it seems to be non-existent

neatchee,

Sure I’m just thinking about how you’d write a law or policy that accommodated both reasonable scenarios

neatchee, (edited )

What’s interesting with the comparison to books is that you can stop it from being published. You can’t force people to give up the copy they already bought, but they can’t make more copies and distribute it.

Hard to draw that distinction in the digital world

And if you want a better comparison, though of YouTube like a drive-in theater. You’re not allowed to make a copy of the film with your camcorder and go distribute it.

neatchee,

Because the right to determine distribution channels and the right to prevent distribution are inseparable. I challenge you to write a law that successfully implements one but not the other. Any law you write that guarantees a creator control over who distributes their work and how will inherently allow that creator to literally or functionally prevent distribution.

The alternative is saying that creators don’t have a right to control distribution at all - anyone must be allowed to reproduce and distribute, even if not for free - and that is a known disincentive to invention and economic growth; there’s a reason we only enforce that requirement in select places like standards and protocols

neatchee,

This gets into a weird debate about the difference between reproducing a thing and describing a thing. With sufficiently accurate description you can create a reproduction.

And when you take that into the realm of computing, where we’ve functionally automated the process of describing things with extreme accuracy it gets really blurry. But we can all agree that “take what you want, give nothing back” is not a good way to run a society, least of all an economy :D

So we’re left with the task of crafting internally consistent legislation that attempts to allow certain types of reproductions, but not others.

The thing is, this is the type of debate just should be happening at the administrative level, in Congress, etc. But instead, special interest groups and lobbyists are doing the legislating on this stuff.

neatchee,

You misunderstand my meaning: they shouldn’t be able to go out and remove all copies of something in existence. But they should be able to limit distribution of the thing they created, up to and including stopping distribution.

neatchee,

Chicken stock

neatchee,

I aim to cause this type of psychological damage whenever possible

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