331
What we’ve lost: The MySpace war files and the impact of a digital 'Dark Age'
(spectrumlocalnews.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
331 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
59712 readers
5873 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
.... for illegally distributing copyrighted material....
I'm so tired of whiny bitches expecting everything for free
I'm so sick of whiny corporate bitches thinking they deserve $400 million payouts because some website implemented a free digital library of books they already owned so people could still borrow them during COVID when all the libraries were shut down.
Hey I totally understand why they did it, I'm just saying it's not how the law Works around copyright, and that's not changing until we change the law
yes but what you said in reaction to "when sites try to archive information and incredibly rich copyright holders with infinite money and lawyers sue them to the detriment of human wellbeing in order to earn a pittance more to add to their infinite dragon hoard and that's bad" is "you're a whiny bitch."
perhaps it would've been worth considering adding your thoughts on the nuances of how laws bind vs protect people in the original comment?
No, I don't owe it to everyone reading my comments to explain my complete thoughts on everything, people shouldn't be out to try to change everybody's opinions on everything all the time?
Why post an incomplete comment then if you're too lazy lmao
incomplete =/= satiating your desires to understand where I'm coming from
Meaning you couldn't find a way to explain your bullshit boot licker comment that was sufficiently flattering to your ego.
Obvious troll at this point
nope, getting colder
Why are you trying to change my opinion on changing other people's opinion?
Oh, i guess you won't answer that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sick of parasites profiting from works made by people who died half a century ago. Can't they do anything of value with their lives instead? Maybe something that benefits society instead of being a burden on it?
Hey I agree, but its gotta be legal. We need to change copyright law.
you sound like a whiny little bitch
Thanks for the analysis J
Yes and discussing it will help this to happen
discussing it in the proper context will, I agree. defending an obvious breach of well established copyright law is not going to further the discussion however, it will stall it, and give copyright law advocates an easy target to point at when people attempt to logically discuss alternative options for intellectual property protection methods.
How else is this supposed to change when not by challenging the status quo? Or are you suggesting that it is only allowed to do so in a court of law?
Yes I am absolutely suggesting that courts of law be utilized to change the status quo... thats how all laws are changed. nobody ever rioted or looted their way into a law changing. its always done in the courts ultimately.
Rather than breaking a law, you should instead challenge the law until you change it, then you can continue your desired course. especially when that law is in regard to an intellectual property holder's rights.
If you were an author, this had been your copyright media that was being distributed without you getting a cut of it, you wouldn't feel like you were entitled to all of it for free.
The problem is that this approach requires the goodwill of those in power, and because the power imbalance is very much tilted towards large capitalist mega-corporations and billionaires, no courts will ultimately have an interest in changing laws. This is the reason why civil disobedience is required, as a tool in order to increase the pressure on those in charge to change the law. Do you think that the owning class of the Ancien Regime would ever have made such concessions in 1789 as they were forced to? The French Revolution is the ultimate example for the fact that sometimes, when the power imbalance is too great and the institutions are rigged against the people, riots and armed conflict are the only option to preserve, regain or establish freedom.
The courts of law is how corporations made copyright so ridiculously long and so ridiculously in their favor. They own the system. Do you think we're on an even playing field here?
Bullshit you agree.
C'mon, break the law, you know you wanna download a car 🚗
It actually doesn't have to be legal. There's scope to laws. If a law is out of this scope (say, regulates ideas, like copyright laws) then it's nothing.
Aside of that, playing by your adversary's rules was never a good idea.
OMG I'm a bootlicker for wanting to respect copyright law for long enough to get rid of it, yeah ok bub, fun hot take, try again
I am an IP holder, does that make me a big bad corporation? Copyright law protects more than companies.
Be silent child
IP (authorship, protection from plagiarism as in "don't say that what others wrote is yours, and put a reference") is fine, copyright is not.
A specific item can be produced by a few people or one person, and ultimately their inputs add up to this 1 item, always. So it's a finite resource possible to own.
An idea can come to any number of minds simultaneously and independently. You own what comes to your mind, but not what comes to other minds. So copyright is in fact aggression against another person, similarly to theft and coercion.
Copyright for individuals is to be respected. But corporations? Fuck them.
You should go become a Disney lawyer and increase copywrite to 1823!
If i had my way ,there would be no such thing as copyright (at least not in it's current form in the slightest), so, I don't think they would appreciate my stance so much.. My equivalent position on trademark law also would jostle their magical britches quite a bit.
They sure seem to have no issue gathering all our data and info for free.
That's because we allow them to, eagerly.
The whiny bitches to whom you refer clearly do not appreciate your analysis.
Thats ok, this isn't a social credit system, voting is to represent how the community feels about statements. I can handle people not liking what i say. If getting downvoted here, somehow meant i couldn't participate elsewhere, then maybe i would care at all, but also, i dont think I would be here if thats how it worked.
edit: i dont care about the emotional downvoting, i think its a little funny
people aren’t downvoting you emotionally. they just very much disagree with the notion of an individual owning intellectual property, and the idea that copyright somehow spurs innovation instead of snuffing it.