The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

    • Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      How is creating a popular a novel any different than creating a popular object? Hundreds of hours of labor go into both and the creators are entitled to the full value of said labor.

      Say you have an amazing story about the vacation you took last year, and told all your friends about it. You would justifiably be pissed if you later found out one of your friends was telling that story as if they had done it. It’s the same for someone who writes a book or any other form of media.

        • AeroLemming@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Piracy can only be considered to be depriving someone of some good if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pirate would have paid for access to the content had they not had a pirated copy available. Not only is this not true in the majority of cases, it’s also completely impossible to prove in 99.9% of the cases where it is true.

      • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        We aren’t talking about plagiarism, the friend would be telling the story about you still.

        Spoken word narratives are such an integral part of culture, imagine if your grandpa told you to never repeat any of the stories of his childhood because “he owns the copywrite”. Insane. That’s what you are suggesting.

        Ideas are not objects. Having good ideas shared incurs no loss to anybody, except imagined “lost potential value”.

        • Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I’m saying that those who create are entitled to the value of what they create. If a company asks to look iver some of your work before hiring you, says that they aren’t interested, and then you see them using that work afterwards i doubt you would be saying “well, information should be free”.

          If you want to write stories, draw pictures, make movies or webshows and distribute then for free ti everyone, then that’s a noble initiative, but creatives depend on what they create for their livelyhood.

          • zbyte64@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            saying that those who create are entitled to the value of what they create.

            Here I was thinking we all deserved a giant meteor.

            The publisher example is one of a difference in power and you’re saying that IP is there to protect the author. Except this whole video is about how that doesn’t happen anymore. The law is written and litigated by those with power.

          • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            That happens already.

            If the situation is reversed, the hammer comes down on the independent artist.

            We need stronger worker and consumer protections. Copywrite is a shit solution.

      • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Strawman. Is intellectual property the same as personally identifiable information? Can you doxx a director using their movie?

          • HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            No reasonable person who says “information should be free” is also lumping in PII with that. It’s clear from the context in this thread that they are referring to media and knowledge (seeing how the post itself was about media and everyone has been discussing the justifiability of things like piracy amid the erosion of digital ownership), not about posting where people live and shit, so you bringing up personal information is at best a misunderstanding of what the saying “information should be free” actually means or at worst a logical fallacy and deliberate attempt to derail the conversation.

            Also, just saying, personal information is currently free regardless of whether or not it should be or whether it’s legal. There are thousands of websites indexable by search engines that list people’s information for anyone to take, mostly from data breaches or otherwise scraped from the internet. There are even websites specifically dedicated to archiving doxxes, hosted in jurisdictions with no privacy laws so the victim can never get it removed. Search your own phone number or email, I bet you’ll find it listed somewhere possibly with a ton of your other information.

            • poopkins@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              What is exactly “information” in this statement? Is a feature length movie “information” that needs to be shared freely? At 4K freely or will HD suffice for the meaning? Or is it just a plot summary? I’m in the camp that will argue just the latter.