this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
300 points (97.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54655 readers
594 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com
dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
300
Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it (walledculture.org)
submitted 4 months ago by Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

One of the clearest demonstrations of how copyright is actively harmful is the lawsuit that four of the biggest publishers brought against the Internet Archive. As a result of the judge’s decision in favour of the publishers – currently being appealed – more than 500,000 books have been taken out of lending by the Internet Archive, including more than 1,300 banned and “challenged” books. In an open letter to the publishers in the lawsuit, the Internet Archive lists three core reasons why removing half a million ebooks is “having a devastating impact in the US and around the world, with far-reaching implications”.

Cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17259314

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Seems weird for it to be called "intellectual property" if its purpose is not to be owned

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Not 'to grant them greater control' or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.

Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

By having a Right to do something, a person also has the implicit Right to abstain from doing something.

Having the Right to Free Speech doesn't mean that a person is obligated to make publicly available every thought and opinion that they have.

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

Then they have the right to not continue publishing their stuff. That doesn't affect the rights of the persons who already got their copy alongside the associated rights to consume it. Depending on the licensing terms, it might not even affect their granted right to redistribute, if any.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Then they have the right to not continue publishing their stuff.

I was arguing against the comment that said:

You should be legally required to offer content you have on a copyright or else allow people to "pirate" it.