ky56

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

My major issue with copyright is how published works can have major cultural significance. How it can shift ideas and shape minds. But your not allowed to have some fun with on a personal level. How can it be the norm that the most important scientific knowledge and other culturally significant material is locked behind such restrictive measures. Essentially ensuring that middle class and especially poor people are locked out.

If you publish something, even if it's paid, you don't deserve such restrictive rights. You deserve to be compensated for your work but you don't deserve to make it into a extortion racket.

My view on your second point is if you have posted it publicly with no paywall, maybe you should still get some percentage revenue but you don't have a say in what it can be used. To place restrictions on what it can be used for when posting it publicly is academic as it's basically unenforceable.

We live in a society which revolves around the discovery and sharing of ideas. We are all entitled to a certain amount of the sharing of that information. That's the whole point. To have some business man who was in the right place at the right time create an extortion racket out of something culturally significant they almost certainly didn't create is wrong.

Sorry if this is all over the place. I'm writing this while tired.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

All the AI race has done is surface the long standing issue of how broken copyright is for the online internet era. Artists should be compensated but trying to do that using the traditional model which was originally designed with physical, non infinitely copyable goods in mind is just asinine.

One such model could be to make the copyright owner automatically assigned by first upload on any platform that supports the API. An API provided and enforced by the US copyright office. A percentage of the end use case can be paid back as royalties. I haven't really thought out this model much further than this.

Machine learning is here to say and is a useful tool that can be used for good and evil things alike.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Dumbass. YouTube has single-handedly proven how broken the copyright system is and this dick wants to make it worse. There needs to be a fair-er rebalancing of how people are compensated and for how long.

What exactly that looks like I'm not sure but I do know that upholding the current system is not the answer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Depending on where you live, I believe the loop hole is that ripping media for personal use is legal but breaking the DRM and/or sharing the DRM breaking program is illegal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So yes a temporary internet connection is required. In order to download the updated keys.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I think @Ilandar is just trying to find a second best solution that's easier to do on the go. Like while hiking or camping.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Pretty sure Spotify is more powerless than you think. The record labels nearly burned their industry to the ground in the 2000s over digital piracy.

Netflix wouldn't be around today if it wasn't for their move into becoming their own movie studio thanks to just about every big Hollywood studio pulling out, arrogantly thinking that they can each run their own service for a bigger slice of the pie. Newsflash, it's going really bad. Especially for Disney, who deserve everything coming to them.

I reckon if Spotify makes even a small move to undermine the big record labels, they would yank all the popular music. Spotify either wouldn't last long or best case they down size into a niche music platform.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I'm not defending Sony. Though I am also trying to discuss the industry standard practices that they operate in. That said how come Valve lets you keep any purchased game after the license is revoked but nearly every other digital store doesn't or is hit and miss. It's clearly something in the contract/licensing deal.

In other words Sony could choose to play hard ball and only sign contracts that permit continuous use of content after purchasing it. Thereby allowing something closer to actual ownership. Though the question is whether Sony and other digital marketplaces can convince rights holders to agree to such terms in the movie/tv industry.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 years ago

DeArrow by the same developer as SponsorBlock seems to be actively developed and community contributions are fast.

view more: ‹ prev next ›