![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
Yeah I’m not really seeing the harassment angle when you have to track these kids down on TikTok to see the videos.
Yeah I’m not really seeing the harassment angle when you have to track these kids down on TikTok to see the videos.
So kids are joking around with each other online and the school is monitoring their accounts and punishing them for mean jokes about teachers? Leave these kids alone
It’s just sort of a non sequitur if it’s about Trump - this is an article about picking a candidate to maximize Dem chances of beating Trump, neither side of the argument on who that should be wants Trump.
That sounds more like Trump than Biden. The trouble is Trump is probably what we’ll get if Biden doesn’t suck it up and drop out of the race.
No copyright is about the “right” to “copy” the work in question, not the attribution. Works that are in the public domain still list the author.
Shortening the time is good, and adjusting it while it still does apply to allow for more legal free sharing of the work.
Eliminating copyright doesn’t mean they’d be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing. Anything an artist creates blowing up and gaining wide appreciation is very good for that artist’s future prospects. An artist who is spreading their work for free anyway is much better off in the scenario where there’s no copyright and everyone understands the need to tip / patronize their favorite artists.
If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you’re trying to gain.
“your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.”
The default is already for young artists to share a lot of their work hoping to get noticed. Getting rid of copyright would be reorienting the whole system to center that experience more rather than the established artists and art producing corporations who now are in a strong enough position to charge. “Making it” would just mean that your patreon was doing gangbusters rather than selling a lot of copies of whatever your art is.
Yeah Project Gutenberg really demonstrates how this is all pretty much already built, just illegal to include recent works in. Though of course that’s just books where the post copyright free library could also include all other art and culture such as tv, radio, movies, images, games, etc
Yeah even if you are pro-copyright as a way to encourage artistic creation there is no justification for how insanely long works stay under copyright. Or for banning free filesharing of copyrighted works.
If we did ever get away from copyright we’d have a very different funding model for artistic creation. More patronage, patreon, and tipping based and less payment per sale. Artists, or groups of artists, would create and share their work, and people would direct money towards those they enjoyed the most. Physical copies of anything would decline in importance with all art available for free download, and would be sold and costed more based on the effort needed to manufacture that physical object than anything to do with the original creator or creators.
I’m more open to burning the whole edifice of copyright law down than you are, but the key reform that I want that maybe we could agree on is that it should be legal to distribute coprighted works for free. No need to to let someone else try to make a profit by undercutting your sales, but if someone is willing to make and distribute copies (or ecopies) of a work to no profit for themselves they should be allowed to. What that would mean in practice if it was legal would be an online content library containing all human art and culture, freely available for download to all comers. It might hurt the income of some creators, but you’d still have a lot of other ways to make money that don’t entail depriving people of that library.
Well in theory the idea is that it encourages people to create more by making doing so more lucrative. May have even made some sense back in the era before digitization.
Haha probably better to keep the tube closer to the surface of the Earth but otherwise yes.
If only we had a series of pneumatic tubes connecting all our homes, you could order something online and have it pop up right next to you minutes later.
Ordinary Mexicans
What do all the people downvoting it based on the title assume it means?
Any time a company is pushing a change this hard I know it’s not something I want.
Again, how is it harassment if it’s just jokes these kids are passing around between each other that are only discoverable by snooping in them?