The legal ruling against the Internet Archive has come down in favour of the rights of authors.

    • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I wonder if you would feel that way if you were one of the artists whose copyrighted media was distributed illegally?

      • auth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The problem is that copyright last way to fucking long and they keep extending it. It should be the same as patents… 15 years I think. I’m just going to keep xdcc get whatever I want until they fix it.

        • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          I agree, but the internet archive doesn’t have the authority to roll the duration back right? So it was illegal. We all agree the law needs to change, but it is still the law currently.

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Copyright only exists so rich people can own yet another thing they didnt make.

    • Jamie@jamie.moe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The original intent was good. You make something, you can legally ensure people can’t just copy your work and slap their name on it for profit. People could make creative works without fear of someone else ripping it away from them.

      Then Disney just kept bribing politicians to extend it to a ridiculous degree so they wouldn’t lose Mickey to public domain until they moved his likeness into their trademark, which lives as long as it’s being used actively.

      And then you have DMCA, where everyone is guilty until innocent and that whole can of worms, and DRM which is technically illegal to circumvent no matter how much time or what reason. Corporatization and the Internet turned that relatively simple and good ideas into an utter mess.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        that original intent never mattered. no one’s gonna make mickey mouse shorts and people be like “oh that must be their character, not Disney’s”. Mickey became famous and profitable from Disney’s amazing animation and enjoyable writing. Without copyright, that’s still the case. Queen and David Bowie didnt fall from financial or celebrity grace because Vanilla Ice copied them, because being copied doesnt detract from you. Again, all it did was enable the rich to profit from more things they didnt make. Get rid of all of it.

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is an affront on preservation of human knowledge and keeping it accessible. This is a perfect example of what utter cancer copyright is.

  • taanegl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Aaaw. Publishers caring about authors? That’s a big fat lie. Make no mistake, no matter what type of publisher, be it literary, musical, dramatic (TV & film), the only goal is to consolidate ingellectual property, employ predatory and lobsided contracts and then pretend that they represent the creators.

    Fact is that lending, and also digital lending, has a negligible result on the author’s bottom line. The publishers however want libraries gone because then they make their investors happy. That’s it.

    Know the motivation and intention behind this, because it isn’t to protect the income of authors.