It's weird sometimes when I seem to know more about the way the US is set up and run than people who live there.
There's no reason for any state government to honour a tiny petition (yes, 10k is tiny) from people who don't live there for any reason whatsoever, let alone to directly control who represents the voters of that state. There may be some recall procedure in the state to end a representative's tenure early, but that's not going to be going anywhere except the trash if it's no coming from the people of the state (and, to give my example above, Kentucky does not have such a recall procedure from what I see on a quick search). Apart from that, elections are regularly scheduled and you may be able to try and influence the actual voters to do what's right for everyone.
So what, apart from your fevered imagination, gives you any control over what other people have chosen to represent their interests? If you're just wishing for something, why would you believe that would give you what you want and not be abused by the people to block the representatives you have chosen?
It may be your right, and even feel that it's your duty, to waste time on meaningless petitions, but the people you send it to don't have to do a damn thing about it. I agree that it would be nice if the people who are actively blocking what an actual majority of the country have chosen, but it does not - and should not - work in the way you've hallucinated.
It's still DRM. The fact that, in this specific implementation and at this specific moment in time, they chose that the outcome of failing the DRM check was a message instead of an actual block on using the product does not stop it from being DRM.
"I think there is a reasonable middle ground between the “Do Nothing, everything is fine the way it is and if you touch it the internet as we know it will be burnt to the ground” side "
Maybe there is. But, I don't see anyone literally saying "do nothing", and the rest of us have eyes to see the natural consequences of what's actually being proposed.
"It’s not about shutting down companies"
Maybe not, but that is what will happen whether you intend it to or not.
Why would it not? I'll make it easy for you - if you think you've come up with a solution that only affects Amazon and/or whatever major target you've imagined and does not place greater hardship on smaller players, you've either come up with a solution that's so narrowly targeted that it's easy for your intended targets to route around with a small amount of restructuring. Or, more likely, you really need to re-read your proposal to locate the unintended consequences.
"In a democratic Society, the People ARE the government"
Ideally, yes. In reality, that's not always the case (witness the current situation in the US where your ability to represent your own desired interests appears to vary wildly depending on where you live).
"How many have sent letters to our representatives? Tell them to do the job required or be fired"
OK, but you send letters to the representative that you personally have, but their power is overridden by a cabal of other representatives who don't agree with you and you have no sway over. It doesn't matter how many letters you send to your local representative in CA, for example, if Mitch McConnell is just going to override anything they try to do. You don't get anywhere by firing people who don't have the direct power to do what you want them to do, and any letters you send to Kentucky are not going to be taken seriously.
The problem with that take is that a lot of Americans do care. They're just single issue voters and will allow the rest of the country to be burned down around them so long as that single issue is protected. This has been part of the playbook for a long time - pander to a single issue, then you get carte blanche to do a great many other things so long as you don't violate your promise to protect that single issue.
"Start calling out individual senators and representatives too."
This already happens. The problem is that sometimes it takes the form of decrying the fact that some representatives are barely literate trolls who care more about headlines than the welfare of their own constituents because death threats got them elected unopposed (MTG) while others are attacked as the second coming of Stalin because they suggest adopting measures that have been proven successful in the rest of the developed world (Sanders, AOC, among others).
More to the point - your ISP market. If you only have a single local monopoly you wouldn't trust further than you can throw their datacentre, but dozens of VPN providers you can drop in an instant if they violate your trust, then what?
"The user roles do not possess dev access. That just doesn't happen."
Let's just say that I've seen networks that prove you wrong. Very wrong.
"...which is why single sign-on is normally used to access any services considered built-in."
It really isn't. For example, my current company uses SSO to manage logins to Gitlab and numerous other external services.
"If Elsevier is linking their login accounts to SSO then that's an extra headache for both the university IT department and Elsevier."
...if things go wrong. For normal daily operation is a much lower overhead.
"Which is how I have to access every third-party provider outside of the intranet with, for instance."
Good for you on a personal level. Now, come back to me with the situation when you're managing a tens of thousands of seats with minimal staff and a salesman who's convinced management that they'd rather spend their money of an SSO option than hire one extra employee.
"For most self publishers, that is the practicality of life, as the cannot afford the lawyers needed to protect their copyrights"
But, the fix for that is not to remove the possibility of recourse completely.
"How is that any different from today"
Because having an option that is difficult for you to exercise is very different from not having any options.
The system does need to be reformed on a grand scale, of course, but removing all options from smaller players will not magically result in a level playing field.
"Copyright is a license to sue, if you have the money and time available for the legal fight."
Whereas zero copyright is a licence for people with those resources to not even have to bother pretending to not be stealing content. Actual stealing, not the wooly "if we pretend that every download is a lost sale we could have made more money than currently exists" definition of stealing that they currently lean on.
This is a big part of tp's playbook - he's not failed because he's incompetently marketed a product that has no real benefit against his competitors, it's because it's unfair that he has to compete against things that were available before e released his product. If only the competition could be destroyed then people would be forced to use his product...
"But presumably "safety" sounds better than "harms," especially when the government affirmatively wants to harm the safety of millions of UK residents."
Basically, they realised that "for the children" isn't working, so they decided to pretend that making people scared of their bank accounts is a better angle.
"Priti Patel points to Apple’s client-side scanning proposal as a positive example"
But, of course she did, the poor deluded fascist.
Let's translate that - the best "positive" example that can be given as an alternative to users proactively protecting themselves is for a foreign corporation to spy on everything they do. Which is, of course, perfectly fine so long as they're on the side of the people currently in charge. They'll change their tune the moment that someone does the exact same thing but is not aligned with their politcal or financial goals.
"In its quest for easy wins, the UK government is ignoring the long-term fallout of these demands"
It's my experience that it's a mistake to assume that any idiotic move on the part of the Tories is related to short-term planning, ignorance or otherwise that they don't know what they're doing. More often than not, they know exactly what the consequences are, they just choose to ignore it so long as they or their friends can profit and reasonably expect to escape the long term consequences on a personal level.
"Hitler was so worried about his possible jewish ancestry he had two specific exemptions written into his bill about withdrawing the protections and privileges due citizens of jewish descent for two people - himself and Jesus Christ."
This is one of the things that would be hilarious about the Nazis if they hadn't achieved such evil - they were obsessed with the ideal of Aryan perfection, yet so few of their leaders were anything close to it.
"The Proud Boys don't have the ideology to be racists"
It doesn't take ideology to be racist, it takes anger and ignorance. All that's happening here is that there's enough collective brain cells still firing for them to realise that it's a good thing to have a "beard" to deflect some types of criticism, so they can overcome some of their racist tendencies (in public at least) until that "beard" has outlived their usefulness. Then, they'll get the same treatment that Röhm did.
"Well the label White Supremacist conjurers up images of David Duke (pre-face lift) wearing his grand wizard robes."
Yes, and even they have realised it's not a good look any longer. That's why they started calling themselves "alt-right" and wearing Fred Perry shirts while carrying tiki torches. That doesn't mean that the accurate descriptions of their behaviour are suddenly wrong.
"Their speeches aren't fear mongering about skin color, more fear mongering about these "new" people coming in who don't care about real american values and are just here to take your job, home, families, etc."
So, the exact same fucking speeches.
"I've give you that they are racists, but I'm not sure the traditional 'White Supremacist" label neatly fits"
Don't be fooled by their semantic games. The term has a meaning, and it still applies because it applies to their opinions of and actions against people of other races, not a fashion choice. Until they change the former, the term still applies.
I see what you're saying about them claiming that the mean old left are doing them wrong by accurately calling them out, but there's really no point playing their games when they try preaching to the choir. Just make the note that proud Boys are a bunch of insecure losers who blame their problems on the same easy targets their robe wearing ancestors did and move on with making the world one less likely to breed such ignorance and hatred.
That's a rather oversimplified and somewhat wrong view of the situation.
"Internet 2.0 came along, and Netflix went all-digital."
Web 2.0 has bugger all to do with Netflix in reality. You also missed out the facts that Netflix went from being a US-only service to operating in nearly 200 countries and going from a distributor of 3rd party content to being its own TV and movie studio in that time period. If you're focussing only on pricing and availability of content from legacy corporations, you really have missed the meat of what's happened.
"And now that's over, and we're back to square 1, with a limited set of distributors controlling the content creation"
I'm not sure if it's deliberate to muddy the truth or if you're not thinking this through, but - stop conflating distributors and creators, they're not the same thing at all.
Also, that's a lie even if you pretend they're the same - even if you only consider the major studios there's more than there were before (the major TV and movie studios are essentially the same, but there's more "mini majors" than there used to be). But, there's a great many more independent and international players than there used to be.
"the rates are getting too high to justify paying for all of them every month when you're already paying cable Internet access fees"
Then don't pay for all of them, only pay for the ones you want to use. If your tastes are so narrow that you have to spend silly money to chase the same 10 shows around the internet, that's your problem. For me, I'm paying far less than I used to pay and my main problem is that there's not enough hours in the day to watch everything I want to watch.
"So looking at history, at some point the current contraction of control will get too tight and some third party will come along and disrupt things again"
It will. In the meantime, at least honestly present the history because you have failed to do that here.
You say that as if China would be honouring copyright law in the first place. I suspect that if that's all that was standing between them and erasing this reminder from the planet without consequence, the original would already have been disposed of.
Also, Streisand Effect is still a thing and any attempt to silence the truth like that would simply result in it being more loudly communicated. China can control a lot of its internal access to the truth and influence some international reporting, but they won't be able to stop thousands of dedicated independent artists from doing things to remind everyone of the original if they felt that necessary.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Po
"The person they stopped as part of a criminal investigation fit THREE descriptions!
Race, gender, and clothing!"
Erm, I'm not sure which story you were referring to, but I was referring to the guy who was shot to death because the coward responding couldn't take down a guy in a wheelchair slowly moving away from him without using his toys.
If you're trying to switch the subject of the comment mid-thread to the one in the article because you can't address the examples the rest of us are talking about, I'd just say that there's a slight difference between being stopped and questioned when you're suspected of something and being handcuffed and held to the ground at gunpoint. Also, there's other things that don't make sense here - such as the fact that age and other distinguishing features had not been mentioned, the fact that both suspects had been reported as wearing white shirts but one person detained was wearing a red shirt (both of which mean they took it as licence to detain any black male they saw), etc.
"as what creative types have to sell is their ability to create new works, and that is what most self publishers rely on"
OK. So, what happens when a major publisher gets hold of the manuscript and publishes it on their far larger platform, selling way more copies without having to give a penny to the original author? Because you know that's exactly what would happen, since that happening is exactly why current copyright was implemented.
"In practice copyright has allowed publishers to be very profitable, while very few authors survive without a day job if they go to a publisher."
Also if they don't go to a publisher. Almost no artists of any type manage to quit their day jobs no matter how they choose to release their work. The ability to make money through self publishing would also be somewhat reduced if anyone can reprint your work without paying you.
"Script writers etc. could still make a living writing works for hire"
They could also submit a script, have it rejected and have zero recourse when the studio decides to rewrite it anyway.
"A protection against plagiarism is all that is needed."
Is it plagiarism if they take something, then use the work anyway? It's not plagiarism if you correctly attribute a work, but it's also not illegal if you take something that's in the public domain (as all works would be without copyright) and use it without paying the original author.
Wow, how the "mighty" have fallen. You've given up even inventing lines of attack here and you're reduced to noting that surnames exist for longer than a single generation? That's the best you have in 2022?
On the post: Big Tech 'Antitrust Reform' Agenda Sags, Revealing Mostly Empty Rhetoric
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another viewpoint...
It's weird sometimes when I seem to know more about the way the US is set up and run than people who live there.
There's no reason for any state government to honour a tiny petition (yes, 10k is tiny) from people who don't live there for any reason whatsoever, let alone to directly control who represents the voters of that state. There may be some recall procedure in the state to end a representative's tenure early, but that's not going to be going anywhere except the trash if it's no coming from the people of the state (and, to give my example above, Kentucky does not have such a recall procedure from what I see on a quick search). Apart from that, elections are regularly scheduled and you may be able to try and influence the actual voters to do what's right for everyone.
So what, apart from your fevered imagination, gives you any control over what other people have chosen to represent their interests? If you're just wishing for something, why would you believe that would give you what you want and not be abused by the people to block the representatives you have chosen?
It may be your right, and even feel that it's your duty, to waste time on meaningless petitions, but the people you send it to don't have to do a damn thing about it. I agree that it would be nice if the people who are actively blocking what an actual majority of the country have chosen, but it does not - and should not - work in the way you've hallucinated.
On the post: Chip Shortage Forces Canon To Issue Workarounds For Its Own Obnoxious DRM
Re:
It's still DRM. The fact that, in this specific implementation and at this specific moment in time, they chose that the outcome of failing the DRM check was a message instead of an actual block on using the product does not stop it from being DRM.
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Re: Re:
"The end result of laws like this is that you will be forced back into real world shopping"
Hey, 2004 called, they want to help you close that barn door. Just ignore the distant sound of galloping.
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I think there is a reasonable middle ground between the “Do Nothing, everything is fine the way it is and if you touch it the internet as we know it will be burnt to the ground” side "
Maybe there is. But, I don't see anyone literally saying "do nothing", and the rest of us have eyes to see the natural consequences of what's actually being proposed.
"It’s not about shutting down companies"
Maybe not, but that is what will happen whether you intend it to or not.
On the post: How To Destroy Innovation And Competition: Putting SHOP SAFE Act Into Innovation And Competition Act
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why would it shut down Etsy?"
Why would it not? I'll make it easy for you - if you think you've come up with a solution that only affects Amazon and/or whatever major target you've imagined and does not place greater hardship on smaller players, you've either come up with a solution that's so narrowly targeted that it's easy for your intended targets to route around with a small amount of restructuring. Or, more likely, you really need to re-read your proposal to locate the unintended consequences.
On the post: Big Tech 'Antitrust Reform' Agenda Sags, Revealing Mostly Empty Rhetoric
Re: Re: Re: Another viewpoint...
"In a democratic Society, the People ARE the government"
Ideally, yes. In reality, that's not always the case (witness the current situation in the US where your ability to represent your own desired interests appears to vary wildly depending on where you live).
"How many have sent letters to our representatives? Tell them to do the job required or be fired"
OK, but you send letters to the representative that you personally have, but their power is overridden by a cabal of other representatives who don't agree with you and you have no sway over. It doesn't matter how many letters you send to your local representative in CA, for example, if Mitch McConnell is just going to override anything they try to do. You don't get anywhere by firing people who don't have the direct power to do what you want them to do, and any letters you send to Kentucky are not going to be taken seriously.
On the post: Big Tech 'Antitrust Reform' Agenda Sags, Revealing Mostly Empty Rhetoric
Re: Another viewpoint...
The problem with that take is that a lot of Americans do care. They're just single issue voters and will allow the rest of the country to be burned down around them so long as that single issue is protected. This has been part of the playbook for a long time - pander to a single issue, then you get carte blanche to do a great many other things so long as you don't violate your promise to protect that single issue.
"Start calling out individual senators and representatives too."
This already happens. The problem is that sometimes it takes the form of decrying the fact that some representatives are barely literate trolls who care more about headlines than the welfare of their own constituents because death threats got them elected unopposed (MTG) while others are attacked as the second coming of Stalin because they suggest adopting measures that have been proven successful in the rest of the developed world (Sanders, AOC, among others).
On the post: The VPN Is On Everybody's Shitlist After Years Of Scammy Providers And Empty Promises
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"That depends entirely on your ISP."
More to the point - your ISP market. If you only have a single local monopoly you wouldn't trust further than you can throw their datacentre, but dozens of VPN providers you can drop in an instant if they violate your trust, then what?
On the post: Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The user roles do not possess dev access. That just doesn't happen."
Let's just say that I've seen networks that prove you wrong. Very wrong.
"...which is why single sign-on is normally used to access any services considered built-in."
It really isn't. For example, my current company uses SSO to manage logins to Gitlab and numerous other external services.
"If Elsevier is linking their login accounts to SSO then that's an extra headache for both the university IT department and Elsevier."
...if things go wrong. For normal daily operation is a much lower overhead.
"Which is how I have to access every third-party provider outside of the intranet with, for instance."
Good for you on a personal level. Now, come back to me with the situation when you're managing a tens of thousands of seats with minimal staff and a salesman who's convinced management that they'd rather spend their money of an SSO option than hire one extra employee.
On the post: Senator Tillis Holds Secret Meeting With IP Maximalists To Discuss A Single US 'IP' Agency
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"For most self publishers, that is the practicality of life, as the cannot afford the lawyers needed to protect their copyrights"
But, the fix for that is not to remove the possibility of recourse completely.
"How is that any different from today"
Because having an option that is difficult for you to exercise is very different from not having any options.
The system does need to be reformed on a grand scale, of course, but removing all options from smaller players will not magically result in a level playing field.
"Copyright is a license to sue, if you have the money and time available for the legal fight."
Whereas zero copyright is a licence for people with those resources to not even have to bother pretending to not be stealing content. Actual stealing, not the wooly "if we pretend that every download is a lost sale we could have made more money than currently exists" definition of stealing that they currently lean on.
On the post: Nintendo Killed Emulation Sites Then Released Garbage N64 Games For The Switch
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a big part of tp's playbook - he's not failed because he's incompetently marketed a product that has no real benefit against his competitors, it's because it's unfair that he has to compete against things that were available before e released his product. If only the competition could be destroyed then people would be forced to use his product...
On the post: UK Government Apparently Hoping It Can Regulate End-To-End Encryption Out Of Existence
"But presumably "safety" sounds better than "harms," especially when the government affirmatively wants to harm the safety of millions of UK residents."
Basically, they realised that "for the children" isn't working, so they decided to pretend that making people scared of their bank accounts is a better angle.
"Priti Patel points to Apple’s client-side scanning proposal as a positive example"
But, of course she did, the poor deluded fascist.
Let's translate that - the best "positive" example that can be given as an alternative to users proactively protecting themselves is for a foreign corporation to spy on everything they do. Which is, of course, perfectly fine so long as they're on the side of the people currently in charge. They'll change their tune the moment that someone does the exact same thing but is not aligned with their politcal or financial goals.
"In its quest for easy wins, the UK government is ignoring the long-term fallout of these demands"
It's my experience that it's a mistake to assume that any idiotic move on the part of the Tories is related to short-term planning, ignorance or otherwise that they don't know what they're doing. More often than not, they know exactly what the consequences are, they just choose to ignore it so long as they or their friends can profit and reasonably expect to escape the long term consequences on a personal level.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Hitler was so worried about his possible jewish ancestry he had two specific exemptions written into his bill about withdrawing the protections and privileges due citizens of jewish descent for two people - himself and Jesus Christ."
This is one of the things that would be hilarious about the Nazis if they hadn't achieved such evil - they were obsessed with the ideal of Aryan perfection, yet so few of their leaders were anything close to it.
"The Proud Boys don't have the ideology to be racists"
It doesn't take ideology to be racist, it takes anger and ignorance. All that's happening here is that there's enough collective brain cells still firing for them to realise that it's a good thing to have a "beard" to deflect some types of criticism, so they can overcome some of their racist tendencies (in public at least) until that "beard" has outlived their usefulness. Then, they'll get the same treatment that Röhm did.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well the label White Supremacist conjurers up images of David Duke (pre-face lift) wearing his grand wizard robes."
Yes, and even they have realised it's not a good look any longer. That's why they started calling themselves "alt-right" and wearing Fred Perry shirts while carrying tiki torches. That doesn't mean that the accurate descriptions of their behaviour are suddenly wrong.
"Their speeches aren't fear mongering about skin color, more fear mongering about these "new" people coming in who don't care about real american values and are just here to take your job, home, families, etc."
So, the exact same fucking speeches.
"I've give you that they are racists, but I'm not sure the traditional 'White Supremacist" label neatly fits"
Don't be fooled by their semantic games. The term has a meaning, and it still applies because it applies to their opinions of and actions against people of other races, not a fashion choice. Until they change the former, the term still applies.
I see what you're saying about them claiming that the mean old left are doing them wrong by accurately calling them out, but there's really no point playing their games when they try preaching to the choir. Just make the note that proud Boys are a bunch of insecure losers who blame their problems on the same easy targets their robe wearing ancestors did and move on with making the world one less likely to breed such ignorance and hatred.
On the post: Cable TV Cord Cutting Continues To Set Records, Though Streaming TV Is Slowing Down Too
Re:
That's a rather oversimplified and somewhat wrong view of the situation.
"Internet 2.0 came along, and Netflix went all-digital."
Web 2.0 has bugger all to do with Netflix in reality. You also missed out the facts that Netflix went from being a US-only service to operating in nearly 200 countries and going from a distributor of 3rd party content to being its own TV and movie studio in that time period. If you're focussing only on pricing and availability of content from legacy corporations, you really have missed the meat of what's happened.
"And now that's over, and we're back to square 1, with a limited set of distributors controlling the content creation"
I'm not sure if it's deliberate to muddy the truth or if you're not thinking this through, but - stop conflating distributors and creators, they're not the same thing at all.
Also, that's a lie even if you pretend they're the same - even if you only consider the major studios there's more than there were before (the major TV and movie studios are essentially the same, but there's more "mini majors" than there used to be). But, there's a great many more independent and international players than there used to be.
"the rates are getting too high to justify paying for all of them every month when you're already paying cable Internet access fees"
Then don't pay for all of them, only pay for the ones you want to use. If your tastes are so narrow that you have to spend silly money to chase the same 10 shows around the internet, that's your problem. For me, I'm paying far less than I used to pay and my main problem is that there's not enough hours in the day to watch everything I want to watch.
"So looking at history, at some point the current contraction of control will get too tight and some third party will come along and disrupt things again"
It will. In the meantime, at least honestly present the history because you have failed to do that here.
On the post: Sculptor Of Pillar Of Shame Announces It's Now Public Domain So That Anyone Can Make A Copy, As Chinese Authorities Seek To Destroy It
Re:
You say that as if China would be honouring copyright law in the first place. I suspect that if that's all that was standing between them and erasing this reminder from the planet without consequence, the original would already have been disposed of.
Also, Streisand Effect is still a thing and any attempt to silence the truth like that would simply result in it being more loudly communicated. China can control a lot of its internal access to the truth and influence some international reporting, but they won't be able to stop thousands of dedicated independent artists from doing things to remind everyone of the original if they felt that necessary.
On the post: Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you're innocent, why run? -- Po
"The person they stopped as part of a criminal investigation fit THREE descriptions!
Race, gender, and clothing!"
Erm, I'm not sure which story you were referring to, but I was referring to the guy who was shot to death because the coward responding couldn't take down a guy in a wheelchair slowly moving away from him without using his toys.
If you're trying to switch the subject of the comment mid-thread to the one in the article because you can't address the examples the rest of us are talking about, I'd just say that there's a slight difference between being stopped and questioned when you're suspected of something and being handcuffed and held to the ground at gunpoint. Also, there's other things that don't make sense here - such as the fact that age and other distinguishing features had not been mentioned, the fact that both suspects had been reported as wearing white shirts but one person detained was wearing a red shirt (both of which mean they took it as licence to detain any black male they saw), etc.
On the post: Senator Tillis Holds Secret Meeting With IP Maximalists To Discuss A Single US 'IP' Agency
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"zero recourse when the studio decides to rewrite it anyway"
I meant if they decide to produce the script.
On the post: Senator Tillis Holds Secret Meeting With IP Maximalists To Discuss A Single US 'IP' Agency
Re: Re: Re:
"as what creative types have to sell is their ability to create new works, and that is what most self publishers rely on"
OK. So, what happens when a major publisher gets hold of the manuscript and publishes it on their far larger platform, selling way more copies without having to give a penny to the original author? Because you know that's exactly what would happen, since that happening is exactly why current copyright was implemented.
"In practice copyright has allowed publishers to be very profitable, while very few authors survive without a day job if they go to a publisher."
Also if they don't go to a publisher. Almost no artists of any type manage to quit their day jobs no matter how they choose to release their work. The ability to make money through self publishing would also be somewhat reduced if anyone can reprint your work without paying you.
"Script writers etc. could still make a living writing works for hire"
They could also submit a script, have it rejected and have zero recourse when the studio decides to rewrite it anyway.
"A protection against plagiarism is all that is needed."
Is it plagiarism if they take something, then use the work anyway? It's not plagiarism if you correctly attribute a work, but it's also not illegal if you take something that's in the public domain (as all works would be without copyright) and use it without paying the original author.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: January 2nd - 8th
Re:
Wow, how the "mighty" have fallen. You've given up even inventing lines of attack here and you're reduced to noting that surnames exist for longer than a single generation? That's the best you have in 2022?
Next >>