Technology

59534 readers

3195 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

758

Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 5 months ago by General_Effort@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

122 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

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.

Only a moron thinks a free market economy actually works.

Thank you, that's why I'm a communist.

History has shown that not only do corporations NOT care about rules and regulations

"Copyright rules are necessary because corporations don't care about rules and regulations" isn't as solid an argument as you think it is

[–] Pacattack57@lemmy.world -2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Oh I understand it alright, but how is "Amazon owns the IP" a protection of the artist?