polonius-rex @ polonius-rex @kbin.run

Posts

0

Comments

207

Joined

1 yr. ago

she has baggage for the left, but that the right would probably find it very difficult to attack

"she went too hard on criminals" isn't exactly something they can use to their advantage

people want to replace biden because they don't think he can win the election, not because they want harris as president

why would biden saying "no totally trust me guys i'll step down for harris after i've won" make him any more likely to win, especially after he already told the world he'd be a one-term president?

what are you talking about that's literally already how underground trains already work

don't worry amazon are bricking the astro less than a year after its launch

you're now sitting here justifying paying artists in exposure?

to dampen Disney sales

disney doesn't avoid breaching copyright in our world because of the threat of being found out. they avoid breaching copyright because they'd be sued.

The simulation designer would not be creative enough

now you're making assumptions about how the creators of our simulation think, when we also know nothing about them

why would you assume they think in the same way we do? why would you assume what they do would even be considered "thinking" by us at all?

fall somewhere on the spectrum of having a complete inversion of the rules of their universe or having an exact copy of the rules of their universe

• you think the creator of the simulation is capable of specifying each rule of our universe, but not just inverting all of them?
• "somewhere on the spectrum" includes positions closer to a complete inversion than not, so even if you take this as given - which you probably shouldn't - you still can't make claims with any certainty

there are natural limits to what would be conceivable

firstly, i don't think that holds true under the laws of our universe

secondly, why would it hold true under the laws of theirs?

okay?

"influenced by" doesn't tell us anything about the concrete rules of the simulating universe

Or maybe whoever simulated our universe intentionally deviated from the rules of their universe for the fun of it.

likely it's being run on a jupiter brain or matrioshka brain

if you accept the premise that our universe is a simulation, why would you assume anything we know about it follows the rules of the simulating universe?

you're comparing disney re-using work in a manner that directly competes with its living author with them re-using work of somebody who's dead

disney abuses the current system by pushing for copyright extensions because disney would abuse literally any system

disney's abuse of a no-copyright system would be significantly worse than disney's abuse of this copyright system

Public domain because the authors are long-dead. You can't steal sales from a corpse.

in the real military yeah

but usually the national guard are made up of people who wanted a "military" career without the risk

fortunate sons and all that

because you can afford to because you already have a way to support yourself in society

also, not all creatives are idealists, so would need some form of incentive to put in the extra effort to release their work to the public

Okay? What's your point? That the national guard will rise up against the system?

The national guard are famously conservative. Which side do you think they'll pick when push comes to shove?

Because you invested your time, effort and money to create this piece of art. Why on earth would anybody decide to create art if it was a guarantee that they'd die in a gutter?

In your anarchist utopia, maybe an artist can thrive. But we'd have to get all the way there first.

And in every step from where we are to where you want to get to, the artist is significantly worse off. You're just letting perfect be the enemy of good.

As opposed to now where the original artist/author at least has some recourse against the big corporation. Versus none.

Why would the artist get an explosion of exposure when Disney's edition of the book was significantly more widely publicised, so everybody who might be interested in it already bought it from Disney.

The literal best case scenario here is that you have equal marketing, in which case Disney gets 50% of the sales and you get 50% of the sales. In what world is cutting your potential revenue in half a win for creators?

You publish a book. Disney publishes that book the next day, because they can afford to have people on payroll whose job it is to literally just scout out new books so that they can publish them themselves.

Me, a book enjoyer, is going to my local bookshop. I ask what's new, and I'm told about Disney's new book. I'm not told about your new book because after all it is the exact same book, and Disney has threatened the store to withdraw all business if they sell anybody's books but theirs.

I buy Disney's book. You get no money. You become poor and destitute.

How does a lack of copyright help you in this instance?

they would fight for it instead of fighting to stop it

Your argument is that Disney expanding copyright protections proves that copyright benefits them.

But Disney isn't expanding copyright protections in a way that benefits anybody but themselves. They're abusing their power in the existing system, just as they would in any system.

If it helps, forget about the literal Disney corporation. There will always be some corporation that exists with deeper pockets than any independent creator, because copyright isn't the only reason that corporations exist. It doesn't have to be Disney who steals your work, republishes it, and buries the original. Any corporation with more money than scruples can do it.

Why do you think extending copyright past the life of the author helps the author? They're literally dead.

The only party that could benefit from something like that would be a corporation that can outlast a mortal's lifespan.