837
Five Men Convicted of Operating Massive, Illegal Streaming Service That Allegedly Had More Content Than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and Prime Video Combined (variety.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
392 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (7 children)

The notion of the latter informs the former. The public domain is intellectual property rights of the people. Restricting the public domain takes that away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

    So if an artist creates a piece of intellectual property, do you not think they should have control over how it's used? Including who can make profit off of it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    That's an extremely vague question, and presumes that any art is de facto intellectual property.

    It also presumes that anyone has access to the institution that defines and enforces intellectual property.

    Also, intellectual property isn't a real thing, but you don't want to read too many words, so you'll have to figure that out for yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    In most if the modern world, copyright laws give automatic ownership of unique works of art. Legally IP is a real thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Is it your intention to appeal to law? Here in the states, extrajudicial detention and torture by state actors is legal. Does that make it right?

    Do you think the copyright term of life + 70 years is fair to the public? Do you know how we got here?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think there's room for improvement on copyright laws, but that's a far cry from the outrageous claim that intellectual property isn't a real thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Infringement of IP is a crime according to specific states, but if you make art, and I replicate it, it doesn't affect you.

    If you write a story and I read it without paying you, it doesn't affect you.

    The only reason IP is a thing is because short-term monopolies on media (or inventions or methods) were enshrined by specific states as law, and then spread through trade agreements, and they were expanded on without concern for their original purpose or for the good of the public. In fact, we're seeing fair use rights fade since states aren't willing to enforce them, and platforms like YouTube over censor.

    So at this point, in the US, the EU and the eastern market, no IP law would be better than what we have.

    So no, you have not demonstrated any reason I should have respect for your IP.

    However, if you're going to insist, and be an IP maximalist, there is one thing I can do for you /to you (or Sony, or Time Warner, or Disney) that is worse than pirating your product.

    And that, of course, is not pirating your product.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    You are thinking about IP with tunnel vision. You just want to gain entertainment for free. There's more than that to IP laws. How would you like it if you made art that was then used in a manner that you philosophically disagree with. For example, Meghan Trainor had a song that was used against her will in a political campaign against same sex marriage, she was able to cease and desist this use because of IP laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent