In theory this is great, but in reality this will be used very badly by big corporates and all of this shit world
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
84 points (95.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
60288 readers
1271 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):
🏴☠️ Other communities
Torrenting/P2P:
- !seedboxes@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !trackers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !qbittorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !libretorrent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !soulseek@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Gaming:
- !steamdeckpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !newyuzupiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !switchpirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !3dspiracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !retropirates@lemmy.dbzer0.com
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Nope. This will end with corporations no longer requiring copyright and the consumer having to pay even more for media to make up for it because fuck you pleb.
Yeah, that's my line of thought.
No, this is a fucking terrible idea and anyone who thinks otherwise has not thought anything through. If you can't make enough money creating art to sustain yourself, people are going to very quickly make a lot less art.
Anyone here who just wants free content is going to pretty quickly realize that there's very little new content being made.
I doubt the reduction in content made would affect us badly. Certainly wouldn't affect me. Most musicians I listen to do not make a living from their music and the ones that do are subsidized heavily by government grants.
Commercialisation of the arts has been an overall negative IMO because it lures audiences into trashiness and away from the quality.
You could argue that removing copyright would take us back to when only mobility could afford the time or have the connections to be commissioned but having connections is already a big factor.
Even if you don't agree with that you may agree with a UBI ushering in a Renaissance of the arts as suggested by Brian Eno in this 4 minute video.
Yeah, I worry about that with all the LLM slop.
Nah, they'll make corporations immune from it but the normal consumer will still have to deal with licensing hell
semiconductor synapses have more natural rights than y'all soon 😂 work and pay, cattle
He absolutely doesn't want to get rid of them, just make large corporations immune from claims or maybe even able to take copyrights away from others. Abolishment of copyright goes against these people's core beliefs of control, they don't want copyright gone, they wish to control it.
I would never trust a billionaire to do anything for us. If he doesn't just carve out an exception for only people like himself at first, he'll still lobby to have new restrictions on sharing if they threaten his business model.
It'll end up being a back-and-forth between him and the IP companies, so if he has enough leverage, they'll just find a way to give him what he wants without doing so for regular folks.
Yeah, that's about what I expect from a billionaire.
Funny how they suddenly think IP laws are bad ehh
Please keep in mind Jack Dorsey is just some guy who’s had the same shit idea twice.
Not true, before he went full cryptorasputin, he also started Square, which legitimately helped small businesses. Note that I’m not talking about cash app, that’s genz dogshit, and the entire cash team is a bunch of fucking cringey memelord zoomers.
Source: me, I worked there. I was proud of the work I did up until he lost his mind.
Wonder what he’d think if I had released all our source code on GitHub, since ip is bad now 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
He wants the poor not to have copyright laws. The rich will always keep their safeguards.
The poor already don't have copyright laws, and the rich continue to have their safeguards. This is already how it is.
What? You think those laws on the books are for you? No. Only the rich get to enforce those copyright laws.
It's even worse than saying there's no copyright laws, because the poor think they have them.
My music that I make with my mouth was claimed by some dmca troll as soon as I uploaded it. YouTube has no incentive to do anything and now my own work has ads on it.
He is an American oligarch, bad faith and dishonesty are to be expected in everything they say or do.
People who rule you and people who own the country are threat actors. Yet some how we got adult men larping their talking points and literally simping for these "daddies"
Copyrights for good or bad, do protect the little guy. I am sure these mega corps would love to blast their lawsuits out to the little guys and bury them. He is a bad faith actor.
Part of the reason I was skeptical about Bluesky.
I still don't get why people are moving to yet another centralised platform (bluesky is not truly decentralized).
No matter how much someone agrees or disagrees with the lemmy devs, the platform is decentralized and they can't really enshittify it.
Because most people don't know or care about that factor. They just move to whatever's easiest to use.
Society as a whole will need to learn these lessons before such proper shift happens. It will eventually happen since trajectory of enshitification has been set.
They are all future Linux users too, and they don't even know it lol
I hope it popularizes the idea of algorithmic control.
Even if you did get rid of copyright (which they don't actually want, they just want a carve out for their LLMs) it wouldn't matter for anything owned by major players. For example, there was a gap in US music IP law for like 40 years for anything from before the system was nationalized in the 70's (IP rights were a state-level concern for music before that) but if you legally copied a Beatles album from the prior state system, the rightsholders would still sue you into oblivion by sheer force of lawyers and infinite money. In a system that allows the rich to use money to just grind you into dust with no recourse, what is actually legal is somewhat irrelevant, it's how many dollars of capital are you pissing off.
That's a perspective that I had considered.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
there was a gap in US music IP law for like 40 years for anything from before the system was nationalized in the 70’s
Always has been always will be, I have always been against "intellectual property"
Removing all copyright protections would essentially be a reset and would ultimately be a negative for society, even compared to now.
Now, on the trajectory that we're making, we're in a bad place and heading to a much worse place very quickly. We have to do something.
Getting rid of copyright protections entirely is not it. You must have protections for privacy and investment protections that encourage innovation. But where we are right now is entirely too far.
You must also consider AI as a pressing issue in ethics, with a WAY higher priority than copyright protections, but also with copyright protections as a variable.
Nothing is ever simple. Anybody who says anything is simple is manipulating you, and even the truth to that statement, itself, is complicated.
You must have protections for privacy and investment protections that encourage innovation.
Bold claim when most innovations are actually discovered by public universities and government research and not "market forces!
Let me try to clarify where I stand on that specific issue: I do not care how it comes around, but the point of innovation is for the commonwealth. I just think there needs to be appropriate protections from discouragement of time/resources investment, whatever that is. Too much protections and that's discouraging. Too little is also discouraging.
I don't entirely disagree with you on the utility of "idea protection" or patents but have no illusions anything fair can be implemented under our current neo-liberal "world order".
I don't know what neo liberal is or what would order you claim we're in.
I just know that a lot of people hate my opinion on how things should be. Conservatives lose their minds, liberals claim it's impossible, and tankies get frustrated and think me naive.
All I know for sure is that nobody's happier with the system than the people at the top and that's bad.
And that conservatives don't know what the fuck marxism is because they're all illiterate and it drives me fucking crazy. Wait... Does that mean that conservatives are simultaneously the poorest and the richest in society?
I was being facetious with "world order", neo-liberalism is anything but orderly. And if you're willing to watch here's a good intro to neo-liberalism or this.
How does copyright protect privacy? I don't see the connection there. I also just disagree that copyright is good for art. Like obviously we can't just not pay artists (without also changing a lot else) but people should not be allowed to own parts of culture.
Don't worry, the oligarchs also want to release any content they own as smart contract so ownership is eternal and a driver of blockchains. Then they want to make breaking DRM or smart contracts more heavily punished. "Protection for me, not for thee"
Having "ownership" tied to the Blockchain does fuck all to enforce other people not using it. That's just a publicly viewable ledger of ownership instead of whatever hidden nonsense we have now. If IP went away (stupid idea) being a contract on a Blockchain doesn't do anything
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Who needs IP laws when you have EULAs that bar competition? Certainly not corporations with their armies of lawyers.