I disagree with that logic, but using things for non-commercial use is fine. It’s not yours, you dont own the rights to it, but you are free to borrow it for personal purposes, artistic sampling, or similar.
Nothing is owned, everything is borrowed, hoarding is immoral. Give back to your community.
If nobody own, nobody can hoard. Because everything belong to everyone.
And hence, I shall never craft anything for my own use, because if I did, it would not be in my hands long enough for me to use it.
The dangers of that statement allow a person to take as much as they want and claim nobody owns it.
why are you arguing against your own argument?
- me to the librarian, trying to convince them to let me borrow all their books
Isn’t the person who owns the rights despite nothing being owned the one doing the hoarding?
I see what you’re saying. I think a better way to express it is saying that the person who created it is acknowledged as the creator, and derivative works should be a certain amount of “different”, otherwise they are reproductions rather than original.
To yoink is human, to yeet is divine.
I disagree. On my opinion, copyright has its place for protecting author’s work. The problem with it as always comes from large corporations, which abuse the law to sue individuals and get as much profit.
Copyright should apply only person. Corporation not person, so could not hold copyright.
Also, copyrights should expire in a more reasonable timeframe. Probably something around 10-20 years. (Rather than our current US absurdity of ‘Entire life of the creator +70 years’.)
But, also, there needs to be some accommodation for collaborative works, especially large-scale collaborative works with dozens or hundreds of creators contributing. (Like a big-budget movie or video game.) Trying to navigate copyright issues on something like that with only individual copyrights would be a nightmare. You need some mechanism to support group ownership of a copyright, including a way for the group to delegate certain rights and responsibilities to one individual who represents the group’s interests.
I do, however, think that only the group who actually worked on the project should be able to own that copyright. They could license it to companies for distribution, but ownership of the copyright should always remain with the creators who directly worked on it. No copyright should ever be owned by any corporation at all or by any person who didn’t contribute to the project.
You’re exactly right.
But maybe we should continue to try a few more years of treating corporations like really big evil people that can abuse everyone smaller than them, kill the planet, and commit crimes, while avoiding consequences.
I can see both sides. (This is sarcasm. We may yet need to yeet the folks pushing for corporate personhood a long way off a short cliff.)
counterpoint: we do not care if you disagree.
That is a statement, but not a point
I yoinked this image.
D:
:D
I want daddy to do that to my prostate
this is a bot prolly https://lemmy.world/post/43667867?scrollToComments=true same exact post
god forbid people post into multiple communities
its the same community though?
