FiniteBanjo @ FiniteBanjo @lemmy.today

Posts

11

Comments

2,432

Joined

1 yr. ago

If by “claim” you mean falsify authorship, I suspect this would still be illegal even without all the copyright laws.

You would be wrong, in the USA at least.

I like having the options to sue in a court of law to enforce these rights a lot more than not having rights at all.

Lmao

No but I can justify a democratic process by pointing to the much much higher number of people voting for the candidate who won.

In the 2016 DNC Primaries:

15,805,136 people voted for Hillary Clinton before considering Delegate allotment, 16,847,084 after.

12,029,699 people voted for Bernie Sanders.

If we didn't have a nation of 340 Million Fuckwits then maybe we could get more than 5% of the population to select our future leaders.

...?

The hell are you on? I'm just saying that rich people making absurd demands is a really shit citation for politicians listening to rich people's demands. You haven't caught Biden or the DNC red handed, you've got a picture of the cookie jar devoid of hands and still full of cookies.

Primaries work, but nobody votes in them. We got Clinton because she won the primaries in 2016, we got Biden because he won the primaries in 2020.

Lmao, you say that as if the DNC have listened to their demands.

Eliminating copyright doesn’t mean they’d be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing.

That is literally what Copyright is. Removing it means exactly that.

Don't forget you're still not allowed in a lot of US Airspace even if you don't require a license for it.

Let's not normalize it, it makes the news every time it happens.

Looks like they're made of plastic, for starters.

Oh boy, a mug of hot plastic water. Yumm.

Not liking Anarchy isn't remotely the same as loving capitalism.

I made a couple edits about a minute after I hit reply, so as to respond to your concerns before continuing to insult your intelligence further.

It's not "trendy," if anything liking it is "trendy," hating it is the educated stance.

Clearly you failed to understand the "prompt" because the context in which we're discussing this is supposed to be about intentionally creating nonsense.

Idk, seems pretty unnecessary.

But you're not profiting off of it. The corporation is. They have no incentive to give you credit, every incentive to claim that they made it which they would of course be allowed to do. They could even start making their own derivative pieces or continuations. The artist has gained nothing from this hypothetical.

No, it would empower anybody, especially corporations, to take the new artists' ideas and work and repackage them as an item for sale to others. Anything you share would not be covered by copyright and therefor no longer be your property.

Individuals cannot compete with organizations.

Alright but Archiving is already an exception to most laws (clearly not well enforced seeing what happened to the IA) and your proposal would harm new artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.