this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
520 points (95.9% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54758 readers
276 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 |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
'The artist, the artist, the artist! And whoever owns their corpse. Same difference, right? Just semantics.'
Every fucking thread with you cultists. Do you listen to yourself?
Lmao, I don't even like Tolkiens work...
Nor do I agree with copyright law.
However; simply disagreeing with reality doesn't change it.
But; go ahead and continue to personally attack strangers on the internet instead of actually working towards the change you want to see. I'm sure it'll be effective.
You don't think that for the copyright laws to change we also need to change how we view it? How could you be properly critical of the copyright law if you refuse to make the distinction necessary for a certain type of criticism?
I get the "that's not how the world is" argument, but you can't talk about how the world could/should be by using only the word that describe the current state of the world. If you want to be critical of the existing system you need to develop a vocabulary that allows for such criticism.
For instance if you don't make the distinction between the creator and copyright holder you can't make criticism such as "you shouldn't be able to copyright works that you haven't created". You can't tell the difference between copyright owned by the creator and copyright owned by copyright owner because those two people are indistinguishable, so the entire criticism becomes nonsense.
If the estate had gone after the author, this would be a very different conversation; but that's not what happened. The author chose to involve Tolkiens estate, knowing the current climate around copyright.
I struggle to find sympathy for that.
Then you add on direct personal insults instead of constructive conversation and I completely check out. It's not worth my energy to have a discussion with such people.
You've clearly already checked out considering I'm not even the person who insulted you. Here's an idea, maybe don't partake in conversations you're not going to bother to even pay attention. I guarantee you'll automatically come across as less of an asshole.
I'm aware, the reply was still directed at you.
Yup, that's what I just said.
You're the third party entering the thread I created and a conversation I was having with someone else, long after I've clearly checked out.
Maybe don't involve yourself in other people's conversations and then expect their full attention.
Working toward change, but not making normative statements or highlighting problems in rationale. Obviously a real copyright reformist goes around tutting at those "semantics" while parroting the status quo.
Troll harder.