from General_Effort@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 14 Jun 13:40
https://lemmy.world/post/16520722
The key problem is that copyright infringement by a private individual is regarded by the court as something so serious that it negates the right to privacy. It’s a sign of the twisted values that copyright has succeeded on imposing on many legal systems. It equates the mere copying of a digital file with serious crimes that merit a prison sentence, an evident absurdity.
This is a good example of how copyright’s continuing obsession with ownership and control of digital material is warping the entire legal system in the EU. What was supposed to be simply a fair way of rewarding creators has resulted in a monstrous system of routine government surveillance carried out on hundreds of millions of innocent people just in case they copy a digital file.
threaded - newest
This is so stupid since several thousand devices can use one IP address. NAT exists.
If I download music in a Starbucks, can they fine the Starbucks CEO then?
Anyway I hope I hope online artists, and authors are able to use this to sue AI companies for stealing their copyrighted works.
The background is that French law requires ISPs to retain the IPs of their customer for some time. That way, an IP address can be associated with a customer.
A CEO is an employee. You generally can’t sue employees for this sort of thing. It may be possible to sue the company as a whole for enabling the copyright infringement, but that’s not to do with this case. Perhaps in the future, operators of WiFi-hotspots will be required to use something like Youtube’s Content ID system.
They can use this to go after “pirates”. It’s got nothing to do with AI.
Machine learning steals copyrighted material from artists and authors. Those servers have IP addresses too.
Why is a company allowed to track people from taking pirating their copyrighted content, but artists aren’t allowed to do the same to companies making a profit off their work?
Artists are allowed to do the exact same thing. That’s probably not a helpful answer, but it’s the correct answer to your question. You’re making some wrong assumptions about the law, and probably about the economics, as well. Writing a proper explanation would take me quite a while and I’m not sure if it would be appreciated.
There are some companies, EG Adobe and Shutterstock, that offer “commercially safe” image generators trained on licensed images. Artists who would like to make money by licensing images for AI training can deal with them.
Pretty sure getty has stolen publically licenced cc0 images off of Wikipedia and have even started going after the original authors of these images and people using the images even though getting stole them in the first place if I’m remembering my company controversies correctly in relation to stock companies
A good question… I suggest we all start torrenting new release movies and video games exclusively through Starbucks, because I want to know
You may bet your bollix on (“rest assured” in non-Dublin English) them having torrents blocked on their free WiFi.
MAC addresses serious have to be spoofed.
Starbucks can be pressured to require your personal information to connect to WiFi.
Ask for thr PW one day and dont connect and then connect from a nearby location another day.
Starbucks in the US have asked me to create a login to use their WiFi already. I’m in the US. I guess half way there already.
This sounds like the kind of grassroots activity I might be interested in.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/847b8fd8-edb8-407e-a04f-72fd5311edb6.jpeg">
No no no no, this is part of the trickle down economics we’ve been promised for decades. It only works going down, not punching up.
What am I missing, here? If you do something illegal, they can try to find out who you are? So if the girl I am currently cyberstalking were to go to the police, they could work with my ISP to figure out who I am?
I'm going to move to a VPN pronto!
Just tell the judge she may have violated your copyright and you can stalk her all you want.
.
I guess you subscribe to the theory that if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide? Better hope you have the right state sanctioned religion when a right wing government takes over some day.
Just to back you up:
mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters
“The most common argument used in defense of mass surveillance is ‘If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’. Try saying that to women in the US states where abortion has suddenly become illegal. Say it to investigative journalists in authoritarian countries. Saying ‘I have nothing to hide’ means you stop caring about anyone fighting for their freedom. And one day, you might be one of them.”
Exactly.
If something can’t be done in a privacy respecting way, perhaps it shouldn’t be done. Copyright should be something the rights holder makes a claim against, enforcement shouldn’t be automatic. If that makes copyright unenforceable, then that’s too bad I guess.
offtopic: Why would you cyberstalk a girl who doesn’t already know who you are?
Because you live in a persistent fantasy existence in order to cope with failing to achieve any developmental goals since high school.
That’s why you would stalk some girl from that time who knows you. (source - I’ve been there.)
But why one you haven’t met who doesn’t know you? If it’s pure fantasy, you don’t have to contact her.
Also my therapist says “fantasy existence” is only bad when it has priority over reality and one’s real wishes. Also “developmental goals” can be achieved in various ways, and some are better abandoned earlier rather than later. Being very stubborn you might crack some, feel as if reaching a mountain top for a week, and then get depressed.
Celebrities come to mind.
Well, for starters, you seem to be missing anything resembling a coherent argument… 🤪
And reading comprehension.
is cyber’stalking’ even illegal? there’s something incredibly harmless about scrolling thru someone’s instagram that showing up outside their house repeatedly doesn’t seem to compare with
Stalking is always a crime, and has a specific legal definition. For the federal level in the US per 18 U.S.C. § 2261A:
The statute specifies that it is illegal to engage in conduct with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, where such conduct:
Places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to: That person;
An immediate family member;
A spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
A pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or
Causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to: That person;
An immediate family member;
A spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
A pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person.
Scrolling through their social media is not stalking, unless you plan to harass or harm the person.
Exactly. It’s creepy, but that doesn’t make it illegal. Don’t do it, but it shouldn’t be illegal.
If you’re constantly making awkward posts on their content after being asked to stop, blocked by the individual (and you keep making alts), etc, that could be illegal. But being creepy isn’t and shouldn’t be a crime on its own.
What is colloquially called stalking, isn’t actually stalking. Stalking involves a level of fear by the stalked party [or a level of intended harm by the stalking party].
[Edit] to include a little more clarification.
It doesn’t seem like the ruling says copyright concerns justify overriding a right to anonymity under GDPR, but that the right to anonymity doesn’t exist in the first place.
I think that’s probably a better place to be, because it means they can legislate a right to anonymity.
Top me court says this is not enforceable bar real totalitarian state. EDIT: Also fuck them children of crowd.
They’re working on it.
lmao copyright isn’t important
if copyright were abolished worldwide today, we’d be in a happier place. people who buy things generally want to buy from the official source anyway, those official sources might even have to cut prices or (god forbid!) have to make their services better to compete in the market
A take. Presented to you by an edgy teen.
Lol yeah.
Good luck spending time and money investing in something that you know will have zero legal protection as ‘yours’ after you go to market.
I personally feel that a copyright does give confidence to product developers to actually develop products. If they felt they weren’t going to get anything for their work they just wouldn’t bother and our tech advancement would stall significantly.
“No copyright” is usually flaunted by people who haven’t created single thing of value (monetary or otherwise). Who never give, but always first to take.
To no one’s surpise it’s now a go-to argument of “statistical engine enthusiasts”.
Copyright sure was useful for all the artists who had their creations scraped from the “open web,” huh (I am in this bucket). It would literally bankrupt me to enforce it.
Copyright only serves the wealthy, and rarely if ever protects I normal individuals who are well enough off to afford legal remedy. This is due to the cost to enforce, which is beyond most creators and a drop in the bucket for the wealthy. It is intended to and has been updated consistently to do just that.
We need some kind of protection, but historically copyright ain’t it.
I’m all up for improvement or better system.
I’m against anarchy and copyright abolishment all toghether.
Implementing a better system would effectively abolish copyright, but I’m pretty sure most people agree with your sentiment.
I’m an edge case where I don’t believe ideas/land/medicine/stars etc can’t or shouldn’t be “owned” by any one entity. It’s not feasible to expect it in practice, of course. But humans love to carve things up and arbitrarily assert ownership. Some traditional Native American ideas on this are the closest to what I’m chipping away at.
You just made two contradicting statements
Only if you have difficulties reading.
You need money to defend your copyright in court, otherwise it’s pretty meaningless
But the thing is, we don’t need to develop products. New products are just further resource usage, more greenhouse gasses, more “infinite growth”. Also, a company or individual having “an edge” in competition by developing something first is simply waste of resources. Now only they are allowed to improve upon it, make it more efficient, whatever. If this didn’t exist, yea they’d be incentivized less to create it in the first place, but also now everyone could take it and make it better.
We have to go away from thinking as individuals in the direction of thinking as humanity.
I’d argue that it’s naive to think we can ever think non-individually as a species. Maybe I’ve just become cynical as I’ve aged and experienced though, not to say you haven’t also experienced - more that, if you have, your experiences have clearly been very different to my own.
If copyright were abolished, all FOSS and Creative Commons licenses would be rendered null and void, since they depend on copyright law to work.
…and?
Deal
Aren’t they a bandaid to a copyright problem (certain parts of it)? If the copyright is gone the root of the problem would be gone.
If by “null and void” you mean unnecessary.
Companies could take and steal as much as they want from smaller artists in that case
As will small artists to companies.
Shit even the value of art would be intristic to am individual, almost impossible to capitalise on, but totally viable for an individual working directly with people
As they already do, you mean? Like, look at the recent Spotify scandal, with artists complaining that they don’t earn enough and a higher up of Spotify saying that “nowadays content creation is very inexpensive”, basically implying that Spotify deserves to keep most of the money since the artists’ job is super easy. Most musicians already get most of their money through concerts and merchandising. Copyright already de-facto doesn’t protect the artists nor the scientists.
The whole point of them is to create a voluntary system without copyright.
There you have your answer to the question you didn’t ask, but you know what I mean
I don’t want to see a end to copyright. I want it restored to what it was. Where the creator had a copyright for limited amount of time then everyone had a copyright to the work.
Now that time is beyond the amount of time that someone inspired by a copyrighted work could create some derivative of it. Unless you think someone inspired as a child would feel like bringing that inspiration to fulfilment as an elderly adult is going to happen often.
Copyright was never about defending the creators, its origin is the industrial revolution and it was a tool of companies to protect “their” inventions (the ones of their workers actually). It was NEVER about defending the small person who actually creates things.
I disagree. It was put in place so the creators of works and inventions had exclusive rights to that work or invention for 14 years with one renewal for a total of 28 years. Then the copyright passed into the public domain. It was always about protecting the creators. The companies dominance of it came later. Just who came up with the laws and when do you think it was put in place? Just a hint look at the faces on US currency.
I think you’re mixing copyright which protects works and patients which protect inventions as well as the timelines.
I’m not, both system were devised at the same time by the founding fathers. You seem to think its all about the companies when originally it was all about the people specificity the authors. Benjamin Franklin was both. He keenly interested in protecting his ideas as he was both a inventor and a author. Even he recognized that no protection should go on forever. That corruption took place later when the unethical moved to make it so. Greed is a hole in ones soul that cannot be filled by money but the greedy think it can. Something they foresaw as a danger as well. We are living in that world today but we don’t have to forget or deny its corruption.
copyright dates to the statute of Anne. it was not invented in America.
Humanity as we know it existed for ten of thousands of years without copyright. Copyright is the anti-thesis to creation. Everything humans create is iterative. Copyright along with the rest of intellectual property seeks to pervert creation for personal gain.
Art does not need copyright to survive and I would argue that intellectual property is not needed to promote the arts or science. It is designed to do the opposite which is limit creation to the benefit of the individual.
What makes this worse is the individual is now the corporation. Do you know that a lot of successful artists, particularly musicians, don’t even own their own works?
Corporations benefit disproportionally by copyright. They have lobbied for decades to further pervert the flawed intention of copyright and intellectual property to the breaking point. Simply put, going down the road of trying to prove who created what was first is wrong.
Creation does not happen in a vacuum. Pretending that we create is isolation is farcical. We are great because of all those that came before us.
The telephone was invented by multiple people. The Wright brothers had European counterparts. These issues around intellectual copyright are a lot more complex than we are ready to admit.
We have billions of people now. Stop trying to pretend any idea, drawing, tune, or writing is unique. Rude wake up call, it is not.
Thank you, I seldom see my own thoughts laid out so clearly. As a practitioner of the Dark Arts (marketing), this union of commerce and art is a foul bargain. I think it’s time the two had some time apart to work on themselves.
Art 100% needs copyright. There is a reason forgery is a crime. Copyright is meant to protect small creators. Yes it is being abused by corporations but the idea that we don’t need it is absurd. Stealing someone’s work and selling as your own is fraud. Plain and simple.
I don’t see the predictable effects of dropping IP laws as more harmful than the current reality. The idea is to protect small creators but the implementation does the opposite.
The solution, as is with so many societal issues, is UBI.
A further solution than UBI is abolishing the exploitative system of capitalism, replacing it with post scarcity while implementing and maintaining true democracy where the people have actual power to vote on issues
Human rights should be respected most of all and should be legally ratified to protect human rights and equality to the fullest extent
Systems like sustainable energy and recycling can assist post scarcity, eliminating food wastage and finding new ways to recycle and use food bits that normally couldn’t be consumed
New technologies and research into food production such as using vertical farms and aquaponics
Humans should be working together towards a better future in all aspects of life, no one’s rights should be taken away in the name of equality either because then its not equality
I only see universal basic income as a transitional step towards what I have described
Well sure, but “end the concept of Intellectual Property” is already a radical position to argue. Fully Automated Space Gay Communism is a little beyond the scope of the topic and a hard sell to normies.
First, how do you account for all the art made before copyright existed. Second, what about all the art created everyday where the creator does not pursue copyright let alone try to enforce their rights in a court of law. These two scenarios disprove your assertion that art needs copyright.
Perhaps you are under the misconception that artists need to make a living. Art is an expression of our culture and it is not inherently tied to making money. How many people are creating art right now without the intention to sell it. I will clue you in, there is a lot of people, millions who do this everyday.
The amount of art created for personal use dwarfs that of commercial use by a thousand fold. Copyright does not need to protect these artists at all. Read that, the majority of artists do not need or ever use copyright.
All art is iterative. This means every piece of art is built upon the art that came before it. Copying is literally how it is done. You know Led Zeppelin just copied a bunch of old blues songs? Oh you didn’t because you think artists create stuff out of thin air apparently.
Stealing is depriving someone of their property. Copying does not do this at all. You are pushing a false narrative to prop up your flawed argument. Plain and simple.
Authentication of the author is not the same as copyright.
My ideal copyright would be 15 years or death of the creator or the end of sale/support, whichever is earlier. That would mean that Portal 2 has copyright and Portal doesn’t, which sounds about right.
How about an exponentially increasing fee to retain copyright?
Nah. I’d even call 15 years too long.
To retain copyright:-
$2^n for year n
$1 for year 1
$2 for year 2
$4 for year 3
$1k for year 10
$32k for year 15
$1m for year 20
$1bn for year 30
Why, though? It still pointlessly favors people who already have money. Just get rid of it.
Ok, let’s say the copyright retention fee is only paid when it’s above 1k, I.e. after 10 years.
You are desperate to give rich fucks an avenue to maintain an advantage over everyone else.
No. I want to give small creators a tool to stop their work being stolen in the short term.
But I also want to force copyright monopolists to pay ever increasing tax on the property they hold that should really be in the public domain.
My proposal also means orphan works no longer exist.
You don’t pay a plumber every single time you use his work 15 yrs after his death.
Like, maybe tiered to something like 5 years: pay what it costs now, 10 years: 10 times that cost, and 15 years: 100 times, with a hard cap at 15? I could get behind that.
Yeah. Something like that. Maybe don’t even need a cap.
If you pay $2^n each year n to retain copyright then by year 30 you are into the billions.
It doesn’t cost anything to copyright something. You just automatically own the copyright to something you create.
(This may vary outside the US; I’m not familiar with international copyright law.)
I thought there was a registration fee for copyright, but I think I mixed it up with trademark…
So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?
No thanks.
After 30 years not even Disney or Nintendo will pay a billion for exclusivity.
Let’s make copyright non-transferable. For a company to retain copyright it must employ the creator.
In October 2012, Disney acquired Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion.
To keep episode IV in copyright would cost $2^47 = $141.737 trillion
I don’t, it’s not the 18th century and the industrial revolution. Copyright had a time and place and that isn’t the here and now. We are worse off for copyright and patients today. Today they enshrine wealth and are a tool to prevent progress and inflate cost.
Do you want corps just stealing every new idea and product, cloning it, and muscling out the original inventor without paying them a dime? Because abolishing copyright entirely would be an excellent way to do that.
.
Someone has never seen Aliexpress…
Property rights are the only thing that protects the poor from the rich. Sure.
Copyright is the only thing protecting us from getting absolutely fucked even harder by the rich than we already are, yes.
How does that work? By definition, a rich person owns a lot of property. Therefore, laws that give more power to property owners favor the rich. Copyright is a type of property.
That already happens. People who research normally do it under a wage and the invention goes to the company paying the wage. If not, a small inventor doesn’t have the financial means and the lawyers to fight a big company copying their idea. The small person is never defended.
I know right? The very idea of copyright is so fucking abstract, absurd and far-fetched. For the most part, it amounts to:
“NOOOOO YOU CAN’T PLACE THE ATOMS IN THIS ORDER BECAUSE ANOTHER PERSON DID IT BEFORE YOU!!!11!1!1!” (When it comes to scientific or engineering parents)
“NOOOO YOU CAN’T MAKE A SURFACE REFLECT THE PHOTONS LIKE THAT, OR EMIT THEM IN THAT PATTERN. THE RIGHT TO DO THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE!!!1!!1!” (When it comes to pictoric arts)
“NOOO YOU CAN’T MAKE THE AIR VIBRATE AT THOSE FREQUENCIES IN THAT PATTERN, SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE YOU AND THEY’RE PAYING ME SO YOU CAN’T DO IT TOO!!!” (Music)
“NOOO YOU CAN’T PUT LETTERS IN THAT ORDER!! THAT’S ILLEGAL, ANOTHER PERSON DID IT BEFORE!!” (Text and code)
So yeah, fuck that shit
Copyright protects creators and prevents monopolies from abusing the system. Imagine you write a movie to sell and Amazon steals that exact movie but uses their resources to market it as their own and sell over seas.
You tell me in what world that sounds fair. Only a moron thinks a free market economy actually works.
Another example is assuming companies act in good faith to protect the market. History has shown that not only do corporations NOT care about rules and regulations but they actively act in the interests of investors and profits.
It is up to the courts to fix the abuse of the current copyright system and unfortunately they also act in the interests of profits.
Imagine this thing actually happens because you’re hired for Amazon as a screenwriter and you’re paid a salary of 3k a month making shows that make Amazon 3 million a month, and Amazon, not the screenwriter, owns the rights to the show. Tell me in which world that’s fair.
Thank you, that’s why I’m a communist.
“Copyright rules are necessary because corporations don’t care about rules and regulations” isn’t as solid an argument as you think it is
You don’t know what you’re talking about and I’m not going to respond to your arguments that you yourself don’t even understand. Contracts of employment don’t have anything to do with copyright. In your own example Amazon owns the IP because they bought it. Something your commie brain wouldn’t understand I guess.
Oh I understand it alright, but how is “Amazon owns the IP” a protection of the artist?
Copyright died when information became easily accessible. It’s only propped up by those who stand to profit immensely from it. The rest of us not only do not profit from it, it harms us.
Becoming better at technology is the gateway to fucking with copyright. As if they’re going to be able to do shit when I torrent their files over some obscure server in the developing world to over here. Fuck copyright and companies who engage in that. Every game, all kinds of media and intellectual property that these companies own should be stolen from them and distributed freely. This should then be followed by severe cyber attacks on said companies to destroy their infrastructure to the extent that they can never hold creations of artists for themselves. Fuck corporate enslavement of artists and creators. I’d much rather pay $200 a month to be distributed directly to artists than pay a single cent for a game/album provided by Microsoft/Spotify (as an example). Now, some companies are better than others. GOG until recently was something I liked (conceptually anyway, since I don’t play games), and Qobuz and Tidal pay their artists better than most. I am OK with these companies. The likes of Amazon and Spotify and Microsoft should be destroyed so badly that they can no longer function in this space. We should spread the word of piracy and digital freedom away from these bastards.
If copyright was abolished overnight, then the corporations with enough money would control everything. The chance for an individual creator to create and control their unique art would disappear. Works of art and entertainment would forever be controlled by giant corporations.
The EU and the digital world: sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit. In Spanish we say ‘una de cal y otra de arena’.
That translates to “one of lime and the other of sand”. I don’t understand. Can you explain?
Fuck there aint
Copyright imbues the creation with a level of uniqueness that is greatly exaggerated
Given a set of facts & tools people will come to similar or identical conclusions
So What?
Should that entitle you to be a gatekeeper forever?
Humans have an urge for legacy. Legacy is probably the most destructive of human traits, it manifest as hoarding a bunch of resources, having as many children as possible, being noticed, being “famous”. The last two are having your legacy NOW
Legacy is self preservation exaggerated to extremes
I really don’t see how this doesn’t conflict with GDPR.
GDPR has plenty provisions where other laws or considerations may be more relevant than it, negating it in such cases.
I still do think the GDPR is extremely important, but it is no silver bullet,sadly.
But just in general, how can you have the right to be forgotten without the right to anonymity? They’re inherently bound together
Not really. Why would you need to be forgotten if no one knows who you are to begin with?
Lets see Courts opinion on
AILLMs.Hold on, let them check their bank accounts first.
I feel like we’re rapidly moving into a world where a regular person copying anything from a corporation results in summary execution by the copyright police but the corporations can scoop up literally every single piece of content we create without consiquence.
This is the basic idea, yes. :(
Great… so we’re reaffirming that society’s various structures exist purely for the benefit of monied interests, as ever. Any benefit the regular person sees from arrangements is purely coincidental, your rights stop at the point at which a corporation needs them to.
Property rights being valued above human rights is kind of a mainstay of capitalism.
Property rights are part of human rights.
This situation is about preventive protection of someone’s rights warranting real violation of your rights.
It’s a clear violation of status quo, it’s absolute bullshit, and the officials responsible for this should all spend quality time in jail answering questions about mafia organizations they are affiliated with, and then be flogged on TV, with a lifetime prison sentence after.
You are clearly a corporate shill so I’m not going to bother responding to any of your bad faith arguments. Your entire comment can be summed up by saying you don’t believe anything a person makes belongs to them. I hope your life in Russia or China is enjoyable.
This has to be a copypasta
If copyright is sacrosanct then the creation of data by me is my own personal property and without a contract anyone holding my data is in violation.
Afraid to upvote this in case someone later attempts to prove I viewed this data with my eyes
Every single person in the EU needs to sue on these grounds.
Also fuck this corporatist statist bullshit. Why the fuck do people keep voting in authoritarians?
Cause for making an authoritarian change it’s sufficient to vote once, to revert it is voting in the situation created by it. It’s a logical OR in their favor.
And it makes perfect sense that a big centralized state and putting rule of law above pride cause this.
It’s like the “computer that you can’t throw out of the window” quote. A government you can’t change via riots is a bad government. A republic is about rule of people, not of stamped toiled paper with rules on it. The good French rioting tradition is also from this.
Rule of law should never be put above common sense and pride.
In a couple of decades the 2A crowd in the USA will become better understood by Americans and Europeans, I think.
The gdpr allows processing of personal data under a few circumstances and contracts are only one of them.
I can relate to the sentiment, but that just makes it worse. How do you enforce ownership of data?
There’s only 1 thing for it: More internet surveillance.