Ahh yes, the first one. I thought they were the same, and the second one was zoomed in for my old eyes.
Weighing in at over 9,600 URLs, hidden deep inside is one of our URLs which, according to the notice, should be disappeared by Google for the remainder of eternity, for violating copyright law.
That article contains no copyrighted material apart from our own, and doesn’t link to any infringing content either.
It's not a link to the track, but their own reporting on the leak.
Now do more countries!
To borrow heavily from the ideas of Glyn Moody (grab a free copy of one of his books here), I would first address what I believe to be a false premise.
The question assumes that piracy is a fixed reality, and that the goal is to find ways to monetize software despite its existence. But what if we flip that assumption on its head? What if, instead of trying to fight piracy, we design business models that make piracy irrelevant?
The software industry's failure to adapt to the realities of the digital age is a stark reminder of its own inertia. For too long, it has relied on a broken business model that treats customers as mere consumers, rather than as active participants in the creation and dissemination of value.
Instead of trying to prop up the concept of artificial scarcity, the industry should be embracing the abundance of the digital realm. This means recognizing that software is not a physical product, but a flow of information that can be easily copied and shared.
One approach is to focus on providing services and support around the software, rather than just the software itself. This could include offering subscription-based models, where users pay for access to regular updates, security patches, and expert advice. It could also involve creating communities and ecosystems around the software, where users can collaborate, share knowledge, and contribute to the development process.
Another approach is to adopt open-source principles, where the software is freely available, and revenue is generated through customization, integration, and consulting services. This not only reduces the incentive for piracy but also creates a more collaborative and transparent development process.
Ultimately, the software industry needs to stop fighting the tide of technological progress and start embracing the opportunities it presents. By doing so, it can create new business models that are more resilient, more equitable, and more aligned with the values of the digital age.
My submission:
The hysteria surrounding piracy is a smokescreen for the real issue: the outdated and oppressive copyright regime. The software industry's revenue losses are a myth, and the notion that piracy kills creativity is a tired cliché. Piracy has always existed, and artists have always found ways to thrive. The software industry's failure to adapt to changing consumer habits and technological advancements is the real reason for their declining revenues. Meanwhile, copyright laws often benefit exploitative corporations, rather than creatives. By enforcing draconian anti-piracy laws, we're allowing copyright to become a tool of censorship. Instead, we should promote a more permissive approach to copyright, recognizing that sharing and collaboration are essential to a thriving cultural landscape.
Unrestrained capitalism will always trend into monopoly. Capitalist-first democracies espousing "free market" historically never properly regulate their markets, resulting in this state, and the rhetoric all tends to place the market above the people, hence copyright being perverted into arcane lifetime-plus ownership schemes with fingers into everything. Meanwhile, culture is commodified and restricted from those who create it.
I know we aren't arguing different viewpoints; only choices of words.
Sigh... Back to my FOSS life without AAA gaming with my son in another country...
TIL about this. My son will be pleased for his gaming rig he's upgrading his MOBO on in a few days.
We run VPNs and use burner emails when we pirate
Excellent and appropriate point to make. The real problem is with the deference that copyright and "IP" are given in courts around the world, and the way trade agreements force members to adopt similar stances in their legislation and prosecution. Even if IPFS can help our cause in some way, the industry will waste no time criminalizing it.
Sigh... 46 and 2
It would be great to see the public good placed far above corporate good. Alas...
Fair. I picked another activity that's illegal on its face that stood out for its absurdity. Now I'm researching when Usenet or email were ever classified as CC, hopefully benefiting from this discussion.
That's a stretch to call any new website, especially with the market share of Lemmy, a common carrier.
By that reasoning, narcotics mules are common carriers. "I didn't know it was H in that bag in my bum! I thought it was a recipe for oatmeal cookies! Don't blame me!"
Edit: I should add that I would love a broad classification of simple facilitators like email and Lemmy etc. as common carriers. Just doesn't seem likely with the lobby man-hours working to prevent even true common carriers from getting that classification.
Awesome username, BTW
I think (as their open communications on the subject have indicated) that they prefer to keep their legal liability profile slim. In the end, no matter how many users you have in your instance, you're still alone in that court room against the monopolies that represent content rights holders.
From what I can tell they (at least the older admins and Ruud) seem to have no love for Meta, but they aren't chicken little about it either. Federated or not, Meta can easily scrape Lemmy data, so if you mean that .world defederated to pretty up their image and make themselves attractive to Meta, I just don't see the point, but also, it seems like a conspiracy theory to me.
There's a piece on TF about a website that closed down years ago, and has been acquitted four times of their "crimes" of linking (as opposed to hosting), and due to a new definition of "communicate" is being sued a fifth time. The sue-happy rights holders have no compunction against going back to destroy anyone they perceive at any time to have infringed "their" works. Look at Reddit, still defending users against identification for doing what? Saying their ISP was lenient about DMCA notices. To protect against that garbage, you have to be careful, and perhaps remove content you agree with to CYA.
Do y'all think this "cleaning up" has to do with their META threads integration?
You mean as opposed to their stated reason: DMCA?
For starters AI generated "art" can't really even be called art.
You called it art. Zer0 said images, and its just that.
I'm old enough to recall when people said electronica and sampling wasn't music. Since then, we have Hip Hop, Daft Punk, Crystal Method, Deadmau5, and hundreds of others wasting their time with music and Grammy nominations and wins.
No reason to take such a strong stance against a daily banner that combines OP's interests. It's their instance, after all.
Generative imagery puts creativity in the hands of many more than are artistically or dexterously gifted enough to communicate artistically. It takes nothing away from the community, and if you prefer not to look at it, its as simple as averting your eyeballs a few degrees.