Saik0

Eh. There were free licenses. As long as you could show you weren’t using it commercially.

Has Denmark…

Show’s FBI warning.

You know that the FBI is not a Denmark thing right?

I bought a set of pixel phones the other day (for grapheneos)… I COULD reach google store support. Real people. I left the conversation dumber than when I started. I promise you talking to anyone at Google doesn’t matter either. Google is just outright not worth it if you need support for anything… period.

I mean… infinity… and infinity-1 are essentially the same number.

So not at all?

Just like a certain someone who had classified documents that they weren’t even supposed to have without a handler!

The shitty part of the stick… which would be the smelly part, would be firmly lodged no? The stick itself wouldn’t be smelly, which would be the only part that could be vented.

If the stick is in my ass, how could I possibly be venting it? Can you at least attempt to make sense?

Imagine actually attempting to continue a conversation.

Don’t actually do it. Just imagine it.

Nah, you need to read more!

… Nothing you wrote addresses any of the concerns/criticisms that I’ve levied in return. There’s nothing additional to read and you’ve failed to furnish more. Talk about bad faith discussions. You’re response is literally “go google it”… “go read it again”, same bullshit hand-wavy nonsense.

1. You cannot have a central repository and require people to enter ALL their digital works into it. This violates a number of freedoms.
2. You cannot maintain such a repository without funding, and a fuckton of it.
3. You cannot enforce that companies must use such a repository.
4. Even if you did… stolen materials would appear outside of repository and cannot be contained regardless. and arugably having this central repo would make it easier to steal (whether just outright theft, or theft of attribution).
5. Even if you did. And a book got 100,000 downloads, how do you determine what value they get? What if the writer determines that’s unreasonable?
6. How does a creative person in any form make money on this system?
7. This doesn’t stop at just “creative” works right? This must include things like code and other digital works right? Oh shit, I just recorded a vlog on my phone. Gotta upload it to your magic repository!
8. How is malicious use of that central repo mitigated? Remember… you don’t want a middleman taking anything.

You seem to think that you can do ANY of this without some form of DRM and copyright. Remember, you stated

we have all the tools we need to build a middle man free service

While at the same time outlining a literal middleman service as your standard. If a writer/artist/whatever wanted to self-publish. Nothing stops them. Open a website with magento, woocommerce, Prestashop… whatever you want. And sell it for whatever you think is fair. That would be the best case instance to cut out the middleman. This doesn’t mean you can just strip a person of their rights to their works just because it’s “free” to make duplicates of it. It’s wild that you start the premise with that requirement from the get go, going down the premise proves that it wouldn’t work, which was most of the point of my comments. But you seem wildly disinterested in actually discussing anything. You’re nearly as bad as the people who claim communism works… but we just never saw true communism. (which is just as bad as people who claim any absolute system works… when we’ve never seen it work at all).

and the only way that stories and songs and ideas were passed on was through chains of people copying and retelling them.

From your original comment. There’s a difference in rights to the works vs rights to the performance/recording. And further there’s a difference between “personal” and “commercial” usages. The reason those stories and songs are passed down is because personal use is effectively unenforceable (and retelling in your own words would be what we call “fair use”). In your world, you’d make it also unenforceable for commercial usages as well.

you’re going “YOU didn’t SAY gog WHAT an ASSHOLE”

No. My point is that when you think of YOUR perfect system. You don’t actually think of one that actually more closely meets what you described. That shows the innate problem with your idea as you haven’t even fully thought through it enough to even recognize what it looks like. And ultimately how it oftentimes does work for developers that wish to be more protective of their assets.

Regardless. Let me show you why even GOG doesn’t work out. Forget the fact that they need to take a cut still anyway (and be the middleman) for at the minimum of costs of infrastructure.

You can’t beat the cost of a torrent. Either in actual costs, or their distribution.

Given that you’re dismissively talking about a “magic system” while trying to defend against being closed minded towards it, that defense rings pretty hollow.

When you’ve proposed nothing that actually holds anyone accountable… You’re not winning anyone over.

GOG as an example would have been better. But you didn’t choose that. You chose a system that DOES have DRM and DOES act like a publisher and takes a cut. That isn’t a good way to sell your “new system” when Steam does EVERYTHING the “old system” does.

Edit: And now, because you simply don’t agree with me, you downvote the comments after the fact. Just because I called out how your idea doesn’t work. Congrats!

Others around you don’t. That consent isn’t transferable. Nor does it grant wholesale recording even if the owner isn’t expecting it, eg if google present “we need to record in order to do voice to text operations”, then other shit gets used, that’s a problem. And lastly, it doesn’t transfer to other applications. If I consent to be recorded by “Google” that doesn’t grant other ad partners access without explicitly stating so. EULA/TOS isn’t law. Terms and conditions get abused all the time. Law often strikes them down when those terms make it to court.

There is not (yet) any law in the US that would protect people from such surveillance, regardless of its current technical infeasibility.

Wiretapping laws exist. There is no state in the US that allows for wholesale recording someone without consent. Even one party consent states still require ONE party to consent. Recordings taking in a private place without consent would fail to meet even that limited scope.

PC games that don’t have DRM still sell like crazy through Steam.

Steam… IS a DRM. https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/drm

But it doesn’t sound like you care to imagine a different system or why it would be better, you seem to just want to demand that the concept of ownership stay exactly as th US Congress and Court System, in all their unquestionable wisdom, determined it should be.

Nope, just asked to to clarify how this magic system can work without someone to enforce it. And you’ve yet to answer that.

This involves trying to imagine a system other than the one we currently use.

No it doesn’t. Just because the work I created was done in paint or word doesn’t make it any less mine. Just because I could distribute it freely doesn’t make me obligated to. I am justified in asking for compensation and proposing limits on how it’s shared.

This is no different to printing the physical version of these works. I could print 10 copies of the book and tell my friends they cannot distribute it. Just the same I could send them an email with the works and say the same thing.

There is no difference here.

But now, in the digital age, we have all the tools we need to build a middle man free service that would allow everyone to watch or read anything, and reward the creators based on how much their works are used or viewed or remixed.

This has no logical basis in your response though. You’re saying that creators of works would have no say in how much a digital work is copied/transferred. How do you prove how much a work is even used/viewed? That would require heaps and loads of DRM management and to go after those who circumvent those measures… which takes money/infrastructure… and GASP That’s exactly what the publishers are doing now! Look at that!

So if I own it… as the sole writer of some work. But don’t have a monopoly over how it’s used…

What the fuck logic is that? Can you care to explain how I, as the owner of the work cannot impose whatever limits I want to it?

You’re anthropomorphizing LLMs.

No, they’re taking the argument to it’s logical end.

You wouldn’t “already” have it.

You’ve missed the point. Simply having something on your harddrive is already something the law does care about. It simply depends on the something.

Well I’ve read some copyright laws

So have I. Because I had access to an exception under it in my prior job. Seems like we’re still on the same page here. Not sure why you’d feel the need to call out someone else’s knowledge on a topic that you have no idea about.

However, Wayback Machine making read-only copies of websites has for now never been disputed successfully.

Except it has. That’s why administrators can exclude domains from it. DMCA notices also can yield complete removals.

Well… No offense… but duh? It’s not like OP can migrate his spouses “Spouse@gmail.com” address to his mail server.

I was under the assumption (and I could be wrong) that OP owns the domain… And wants to run their mailboxes. If she wants to keep her own mailbox and use it, just forward it to her gmail if that’s what she wants. I’m also not insinuating forcing someone into something.

I own my domain(you guessed correctly) and host my own emails. My spouse does use an inbox on my server(actually a few)… If she didn’t want to anymore she can open a mailbox where-ever she wants… and I’ll even forward whatever I get to her. That’s it. Wouldn’t stop me from running my own inbox on my own server. And I’m not forcing her to do anything at all. She can use it or not.

This is the mentality I have when I made the previous comments. Just forward her stuff off, she can go wherever she wants.