What’s the lesson to take away?

The problem with applying existing laws is then you’re under the regime of rule of law, and TikTok could escape by complying with the law like anybody else.

This is a xenophobic witchhunt, though, and that won’t do.

Seems like one of those things everyone would say in the abstract, particularly on a survey. Then when the studios go for safe projects and the thing they remake is among someone’s personal favorites they’ll watch it anyway, validating the strategy.

It’s crazy to me that people such as you unironically believe the position you’re saying that American companies are easier to crack down on.

We are literally seeing concrete proof in action that domestic companies are much harder to crack down on or regulate. They are much better positioned to lobby and are currently using their immense political power to protect themselves while removing their foreign rivals. There isn’t even talk of taking action against them because they are so politically powerful.

So IP law for individuals = bad, but IP law for corporations = good is the general argument here?

Is there a principled basis for this argument?

It seems like a lot of art like musicians or novelists rely almost entirely on earnings from selling their works to individuals. Wouldn’t a legal regime like you’re advocating basically make producing art for real people a lot less lucrative comparatively and drive those artists into making corporate art and marketing materials?

So what you’re saying is this episode has caused you/others here on /c/piracy to rethink your prior beliefs, and now you see some value in the copyright legal regime?

Conveniently, these moral arguments that are freed from the confines of discrete logic also allow people on /c/piracy to ignore the rules when justifying their own piracy, and still condemn others they already happen to dislike when they do piracy.

Lemmy sure loves copyright and intellectual property once you change who the pirate is.

In that case, this seems like a learning opportunity for you.

Western European countries have rule of law and don’t disappear or mulch people when they break the law, letting them retain their rights.

This counterexample would seem to completely undermine your claim that America’s incredibly high incarceration rates are just “what happens” when citizens retain rights after breaking the law.

That’s what happens when citizens break the law and retain their rights in the eyes of the state

Is it? Why don’t European countries have a similarly high incarceration rate then?