At this point, I no longer feel it is merely morally permissible to violate copyright, but rather one’s *moral duty* to subvert the vast majority of copyright. “Intellectual property” is a thoroughly disgusting Orwellianism.
We have entered a period where a samizdat underground is necessary to sustain the basic facets of civilization. And public education is a central pillar of the commonweal.
#Torrent every goddam thing.
@alcinnz The copyright cabal going after Internet Archive. Despicable. Absolutely shameful. Libraries should be temples, whether online or off. They should be the centrepiece and pride of our species. Their doors should swing wide open for all comers, both writers and readers. Any society which undercuts the Library has lost the aegis of Heaven.
@Shufei @alcinnz I'm actually longtime friends with the lead developer of Internet A'rchives OpenLibrary project that is the subject of these upcoming lawsuits. I remember when he first announced the National Emergency Library back when COVID-19 first sent us all indoors. It seemed like a pretty amazing altruistic action to me at the time. Now their organization is bracing for impact from these greedy publishing corporations. Screw the suits. OpenLibrary has acted in the public good here.
@lambdatronic @alcinnz By heart I support systemic health, and hope for some sort of gentler “progress”. But stuff like this makes me wonder if the cathartic kids have it right. Burn it all down. Kick the knees out from under the suits and their fetid, rotten empire.
Please tender to your friend best wishes and encouragement; I daresay I speak for many. The overreach of these unctuous corporate barbarians must be resisted. Internet Archive’s continuance is absolutely essential.
@Shufei @alcinnz Private property undercuts a lot of things, beyond libraries.
You may think that copyright is terribly unjust. That it creates artificial scarcity and does not reflect the way that cultural works are actually produced. That it props up the fiction of the lone creative producer. And you'd be right.
But in the world as it currently exists practicing civil disobedience against copyright turns out not to be a viable strategy. People tried that in the 2000s and it ended badly. It turns out that to abolish copyright you first must abolish capitalism itself.
We'd say that 90% of anti-capitalists are actually, anti-corporatist.
Eg. if they could start there own little business, serving people in their community using the skills and passion they have for that venture, they would.
@dsfgs Define things as you will, but at least on the fediverse anti-capitalism appears to mean an opposition to extremely wealthy individuals & corporations.
And both Welcome To Night Vale and The Red Panda Adventures are definitely against extremely wealthy individuals. I might enjoy extracting some quotes soon...
@dsfgs I'm trying to use the terms those I'm discussing with are. And I gather from others that these terms have been redefined from underneath us by the very capitalists we're fighting.
Still I don't know what I'm talking about here, try discussing with, say, @natecull . When I stop seeing "anti-capitalism" being used the way I mean it I'll follow suit.
If we want our opinions to be accepted by 93% of society its best to use the correct terms and pinpoint attention on the exact issues.
Yes. #Capitalism, when taken to a particular extreme does stop being capitalism.
Alas, I can point you to a really interesting #film called #Obey (2014 #FilmsOfAction). It's short but fits A LOT in and predicts where #InvertedTotalitarianism (the anonymity of a corporate state being in control). We'd be interested in your thoughts on some of the predictions, if ypu have the chance to watch it.
Sorry we don't have a URL on hand.
Oligarchs are about to destroy the #competition and this is where we are. The #bankerClass are cosy with the oligarchs and feed them newly minted cash daily. Its #socailismForTheWealthy, and #capitalismForThe99percent.
@alcinnz @bob @Shufei
This is why we say the system is so far gone that the only way we see to bring things back is by using #hardCurrency (#gold and #bitcoin, the latter is easier and more liquid, #transportable, etc).
Yes, at the start of the bitcoin game some oligarchs might have a lot of it, but over time they have no choice but to spend it and thus their power will dilute. We think their power will dilute quickly.
It won't be easy, just better.
@dsfgs @alcinnz @bob @Shufei consider the following:
Several rich persons cooperate and in the day X sell all the bitcoins they have in one exchange. I've also cooperated with some people who "buy" theirs bitcoins.
What will happen?
Due to extreme increase of offering and practically no changes in demand, the value of bitcoin drops.
And using those who bought their bitcoins they now have more that they have at start.
N.B.2 the disability to quickly change the amount fo money (i.e. by printing more) can also act as a destabilising factor. Some type of cryses can not be mitigated without it.
Sad but true.
@fireglow @alcinnz Really? That’s your takeaway? Corporations leaving dregs of artificial scarcity, destroying the basic fabric of public education AND parasitizing the livelihoods of artists, the vast majority of whom never make a “living” off copyright. But that’s your read?
Boot leather must be tasty to some folk or something...
@Shufei @fireglow @alcinnz You know, although copying of information does not cost anything, it does not mean that information itself is gratis. Personally, I'm a (junior) physicist, I "create" technologies. Often the main idea can be explained in one or two pages of text, but this two pages of text cost me several years of research on quite an expensive equipment. Do you think this two pages of text are free?
@Shufei @fireglow @alcinnz To be clear, we publish scientific papers in open resources like arXiv, but that papers are about results and scientific importance. The technologies that we invent are patented, as *this* is the only way to prevent technological corporations from taking and using it for free.
@Shufei @fireglow @alcinnz yes, copyright is very controversal thing, but in the world where semiconductor factory costs billions of dollars, intellectual property is the nessessary evil to protect creators/inventors from manufacturers.
The problem is that copyright also conctrains the development of new technologies/inventions, but it can not be fixed with quick and dirty "solutions" like "let's just pirate everything".
@emacsomancer @alcinnz @Shufei @fireglow Well, ok. Example with copyright: software, used in manufacturing/engineering. For instance, CFD, CAD or banking information systems programms. It's seems perfectly acceptable for such programms to be closed source and under copyright, as it literally a way to make money (i mean, the production cost of, let's say, a car contains among others a fraction of development cost of this software).
@emacsomancer @alcinnz @Shufei @fireglow Maybe models of IC is an even better example. The development of logic elements (like AND, OR, NOT and, actually, dozens of more complex gates) is not just the design of semiconductor layers, but years of testing (i mean, creation billions of logic gates and stress-testing them at different temperatures) which aim is to obtain as accurate mathematical models of each gate as possible.
@emacsomancer @alcinnz @Shufei @fireglow Full development of such library of logic gates cost from 100 millon to 1 billion dollars, that's why it practically never goes out of the lab, which has developed it. Consumers are provided with only computational models of the gates, so they can model their designs. Later, the consumer gives the sinthesized design (enourmously huge graph of logic elements connected to each other) back to the lab.
@emacsomancer @alcinnz @Shufei @fireglow Just to understand the scale: routing of small ARMv1 compatible CPU (Amber core) takes about two-three hours on a powerfull server. Companies like Intel and AMD use datacenters full of specially designed ASIC, and even though full P&R of modern CPUs takes from several days to several weeks.
Scientific papers and YouTube bans are great examples of how copyright limits our access to knowledge and restricts "fair use".
Copyright protects not the author, but the publisher, from sharing, because sharing is not profitable to corporations.
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko