-36
DBZer0 has begun banning people simply for believing in the concept of copyright (archive.ph)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/fediverselore@lemmy.ca
73 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Advocating piracy is one thing, but now banning people for believing in copyright? That's like banning people for following the law. That is banning people for following the law. What gives? And to think a while ago I declared I wouldn't have any reason to not take their bans (or the motives behind them) seriously.

Are we trying to get world governments to ban Lemmy (or, worse, the fediverse)? Love the administrative decisions or hate them, such decisions will drag down the whole fediverse. Typically sites are defederated to protect the sites defederating them from liability. Will this be an example, or does this, out of convenience, not apply? Are we forgetting a large portion of the fediverse's demographics consist of artists trying to make a damn living?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 1 year ago* (26 children)

DBZer0 Two communities in dBZer0 have begun banning people simply for believing in posting apologia for the concept of copyright.

Which, without further context, is still a bit of an overreach IMO, but nowhere near as extreme as your title suggests.

That's like banning people for following the law. That is banning people for following the law.

Lol fuck the law. I wipe my ass with the law. Banning people for following the law is turbo-based when the law is turbo garbage. Again, I don't think that simply apologizing for copyright warrants a ban without further context, but "I was banned for following the law" is a terrible argument and I had to speak out about it.

Are we forgetting a large portion of the fediverse's demographics consist of artists trying to make a damn living?

I was a music producer before going into engineering and I've always been against copyright lol. Copyright is a terrible minefield for doing work in my craft.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I counted way more than two communities.

    In case people missed it (I will assume good faith here), "anti-AI troll" is another way of saying "this person is concerned about copyright".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "anti-AI troll" is another way of saying "this person is concerned about copyright"

    ...are you sure about that? There are lots of arguments against AI that aren't related to copyright, e.g. displacement of workers and environmental impacts. Considering that those forums are explicitly a place to appreciate AI content, I imagine it would be quite annoying to relitigate that issue in their home turf. So if the mods wanted to call out copyright, why not just do so explicitly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    You were against copyright? the thing that got you paid and prevented me from just ripping your stuff for free lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Yes, I always was and I am against copyright, full stop. Copyright makes it harder for people to share my music, which is why I gave it away. I was working in music for the music, but the little money I did make was from producing for others. The only reason I'm not posting it here is because I don't want to dox myself.

    IMO the most important sources of income for musicians are live performances and *merch". This is also what we were taught in recording school. I barely got paid for my digital downloads, although I did get a few people paying even when I released it for free.

    I would unironically be thrilled to find out someone pirated my shit. At least then someone thought it was important enough to steal.

    And also I'm on Bandcamp. It's super easy to just rip my stuff. It's not as if copyright was protecting me from anything 😆.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Copyright is more than just about the distribution. Copyright laws...

    1. Encourage credit to be given, when people often otherwise not give credit
    2. Prevent people from making money from something that is given away for free
    3. Prevent people from making fake versions of a book, like what happened to the fifth Harry Potter book
    4. Through all of this maintain incentive for artists to make art
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    1. Encourage credit to be given, when people often otherwise not give credit

    Even with copyright, musicians steal parts from each other all the time. Same with other art forms. Taking small parts of other people's art is normal and how art gets created. And there are social consequences even under capitalism to stealing an entire work without credit which are less formal than legal ones, but just as important for artists looking to keep doing art.

    1. Prevent people from making money from something that is given away for free

    ... this is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, I would happily buy a copy of Mutual Aid by Kropotkin even if Kropotkin or his descendants don't get compensated because someone put in the work to print the book.

    1. Prevent people from making fake versions of a book, like what happened to the fifth Harry Potter book

    Again, there are social and legal consequences even under capitalism for selling people things under false pretenses.

    1. Through all of this maintain incentive for artists to make art

    I 1000% do not want to consume art created primarily for profit. Profit-driven art is soulless corpo-trash. It takes up air that could be used by serious organic artists. Driving out profit-seeking behavior is strictly positive IMO. I want to drive out profit-seeking behavior everywhere forever, but art is a great place to start.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The artist doesn't need to be an artist-for-profit for it to apply. They just need to be someone who can say they spent all day on an art piece. The incentive for that goes away when it amounts to something that other people can enjoy without any boundaries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    I spent literal months on my album when I finally finished it. I spent a whole month going through the drum track note by note adjusting each hit so it was just how I wanted it to sound. I reamped my guitars with hundreds of dollars of gear, actually positioned physical microphones and moved real air to get the sound I wanted. The incentive for that effort was solely to produce the product and have something I could share with people. Yeah getting money here and there is nice, but the real motivation was to actually do the thing for its own sake.

    And one of the most consistent stories I hear from musicians is that becoming financially dependent on your art places a severe boundary on what kind of art you're allowed to produce. For example, if you're a death metal band and you make your money off death metal, you might have to make a couple more albums of death metal even if, in your heart of hearts, you want to make prog rock now, just to put food on the table.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    well of course you dont care, your music apparently has no monetary value (which is fine, but why would you care about copyright when your music makes no money?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    but why would you care about copyright when your music makes no money?

    Because it makes sampling extremely legally treacherous.

    your music apparently has no monetary value

    Almost correct. Strictly speaking, people have paid for my music. Also...last time I checked, Bandcamp had a policy where I was only allowed to offer a limited amount of free downloads and then I would have to pay them to offer my work for free. So I think it is behind the minimum paywall right now, which means it has nonzero monetary value. Which makes me a hypocrite. Shock-horror. But more than a hypocrite... I've just been too busy to check on my Bandcamp account since I went back to school. If anyone knows of a free and federated alternative to Bandcamp, please let me know.

    Music, like all art and information, should be free for anyone to use and consume. Simultaneously, musicians should be compensated for their work, and I provided other ways that musicians are currently compensated for their work (merch and live shows) in the current system. Frankly , these are much more robust ways to make money.

    But more accurately, everyone should have access to the resources they need to survive by virtue of being human, regardless of their success in their chosen field. Full stop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    No monetary value? Check this trick out:

    If their music was commercially available, I'd pay double of what the most popular music is sold for on commercial platforms.

    Edit: Haha what an ass 3dmvr@lemm.ee aka. known as r.EndTimes is, didn't like my comment so they downvoted my two unrelated comments about AI in a different post. Yeah, I can understand why lemm.ee is shutting down with the users being the main reason lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -18 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The law can take down the fediverse. Well, suit yourself then.

    Also not sure how one can do apologia without believing in what they're saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I haven't used their platform for the very reason that I wouldn't follow their rule.

    There is no “fediverse” to shut down.

    Unless you're the government. The government has power over the internet providers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Also not sure how one can do apologia without believing in what they're saying.

    ...you can just lie to people... like trolls...

    But even if we assume for charitability's sake that apologia ==> believing in the cause, that does not automatically mean that apologia <== believing in the cause. Like they're not being banned for your beliefs. That user was banned for advocating for them. Which again, without context is still an overreach IMO, but this is absolutely not someone being banned for simply having the wrong opinion.

    The law can take down the Fediverse

    Can they? Sure they can take down individual servers, sure they can make it impossible for money grubbers to make money here make it hard to be profitable, but they can't take us all out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    When a government blocks a website in a country, they do so by registering the website's name on a list of websites held by the internet providers. They can do this to any website federated with a certain website they want blocked until they're all blocked. They have blocked email providers before, if you want a rough model of how this would work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Okay but once you block all the existing Fediverse sites, some people spin up new sites and we can move over to those. And I think PieFed has an option to copy and move whole communities.

    But also...I honestly think that the public at large needs to treat world governments and corporations as adversarial threats to be actively circumvented, even for completely benign things like applying for work or talking to people online. I.e. we need to socially normalize the mass usage of Tor and other anonymizing software because the people who least of all deserve power are the ones who control our internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They're still going to try. Russia already has, and they're the home of Marxism-Leninism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    Yeah they're going to try to it, or really just force it on us, regardless of what we do. The people who run our world governments...they already are the monsters, they already are the warlords, they already are the people they told us to fear. They have insulated themselves from the will of the public.

    So it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". Really, we shouldn't be considering what governments demand of us, because they don't consider what we demand of them. We need mass mobilization of the public. And at least on the online front, that's reasonably easy: everyone should be on Tor as much as possible, everyone should be using adblock when forced onto the clearnet, everyone should ditch all FAANG [1] services and be using FOSS federated alternatives as much as possible, and people who provide web services should accept connections from Tor endpoints and people who "look legally sketchy".

    [1] Yes I'm aware that a lot of Fediverse sites use AWS in the backend. I think that, at some point, we need to move away from AWS, even if it means significantly downsizing the Fediverse and the rest of the Internet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent