Countless firsthand accounts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have disappeared across the last decade, and it may speak to larger issues with the historical record in the digital age.

  • fluxion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Meanwhile archive sites are getting sued by greedy copyright owners

    • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      191
      ·
      11 months ago

      … for illegally distributing copyrighted material…

      I’m so tired of whiny bitches expecting everything for free

      • fluxion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        84
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m so sick of whiny corporate bitches thinking they deserve $400 million payouts because some website implemented a free digital library of books they already owned so people could still borrow them during COVID when all the libraries were shut down.

        • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          64
          ·
          11 months ago

          Hey I totally understand why they did it, I’m just saying it’s not how the law Works around copyright, and that’s not changing until we change the law

          • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            38
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            yes but what you said in reaction to “when sites try to archive information and incredibly rich copyright holders with infinite money and lawyers sue them to the detriment of human wellbeing in order to earn a pittance more to add to their infinite dragon hoard and that’s bad” is “you’re a whiny bitch.”

            perhaps it would’ve been worth considering adding your thoughts on the nuances of how laws bind vs protect people in the original comment?

            • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              56
              ·
              11 months ago

              No, I don’t owe it to everyone reading my comments to explain my complete thoughts on everything, people shouldn’t be out to try to change everybody’s opinions on everything all the time?

                  • MaggiWuerze@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Meaning you couldn’t find a way to explain your bullshit boot licker comment that was sufficiently flattering to your ego.

              • TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                people shouldn’t be out to try to change everybody’s opinions on everything all the time?

                Why are you trying to change my opinion on changing other people’s opinion?

                I don’t owe it to everyone reading my comments to explain my complete thoughts

                Oh, i guess you won’t answer that. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

      • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sick of parasites profiting from works made by people who died half a century ago. Can’t they do anything of value with their lives instead? Maybe something that benefits society instead of being a burden on it?

            • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              11 months ago

              discussing it in the proper context will, I agree. defending an obvious breach of well established copyright law is not going to further the discussion however, it will stall it, and give copyright law advocates an easy target to point at when people attempt to logically discuss alternative options for intellectual property protection methods.

              • MaggiWuerze@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                How else is this supposed to change when not by challenging the status quo? Or are you suggesting that it is only allowed to do so in a court of law?

                • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Yes I am absolutely suggesting that courts of law be utilized to change the status quo… thats how all laws are changed. nobody ever rioted or looted their way into a law changing. its always done in the courts ultimately.

                  Rather than breaking a law, you should instead challenge the law until you change it, then you can continue your desired course. especially when that law is in regard to an intellectual property holder’s rights.

                  If you were an author, this had been your copyright media that was being distributed without you getting a cut of it, you wouldn’t feel like you were entitled to all of it for free.

                  • hark@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    The courts of law is how corporations made copyright so ridiculously long and so ridiculously in their favor. They own the system. Do you think we’re on an even playing field here?

                  • Richard@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    The problem is that this approach requires the goodwill of those in power, and because the power imbalance is very much tilted towards large capitalist mega-corporations and billionaires, no courts will ultimately have an interest in changing laws. This is the reason why civil disobedience is required, as a tool in order to increase the pressure on those in charge to change the law. Do you think that the owning class of the Ancien Regime would ever have made such concessions in 1789 as they were forced to? The French Revolution is the ultimate example for the fact that sometimes, when the power imbalance is too great and the institutions are rigged against the people, riots and armed conflict are the only option to preserve, regain or establish freedom.

          • Quokka@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m so tired of whiny bitches expecting everything for free

            Bullshit you agree.

          • Gork@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            C’mon, break the law, you know you wanna download a car 🚗

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It actually doesn’t have to be legal. There’s scope to laws. If a law is out of this scope (say, regulates ideas, like copyright laws) then it’s nothing.

            Aside of that, playing by your adversary’s rules was never a good idea.

        • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          42
          ·
          11 months ago

          OMG I’m a bootlicker for wanting to respect copyright law for long enough to get rid of it, yeah ok bub, fun hot take, try again

          • sadreality@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            11 months ago

            Why are you worried about some rich corporations’ “property”… Focus on your own shit.

            I will start respecting copyright law as soon as corporations start respecting “the laws” until then fuck 'em

            Playing by the rules is for clowns who don’t understand the system.

              • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                IP (authorship, protection from plagiarism as in “don’t say that what others wrote is yours, and put a reference”) is fine, copyright is not.

                A specific item can be produced by a few people or one person, and ultimately their inputs add up to this 1 item, always. So it’s a finite resource possible to own.

                An idea can come to any number of minds simultaneously and independently. You own what comes to your mind, but not what comes to other minds. So copyright is in fact aggression against another person, similarly to theft and coercion.

          • 0xD@infosec.pub
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Copyright for individuals is to be respected. But corporations? Fuck them.

        • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          If i had my way ,there would be no such thing as copyright (at least not in it’s current form in the slightest), so, I don’t think they would appreciate my stance so much… My equivalent position on trademark law also would jostle their magical britches quite a bit.

      • c0c0c0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        The whiny bitches to whom you refer clearly do not appreciate your analysis.

        • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Thats ok, this isn’t a social credit system, voting is to represent how the community feels about statements. I can handle people not liking what i say. If getting downvoted here, somehow meant i couldn’t participate elsewhere, then maybe i would care at all, but also, i dont think I would be here if thats how it worked.

          edit: i dont care about the emotional downvoting, i think its a little funny

          • jwmgregory@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            people aren’t downvoting you emotionally. they just very much disagree with the notion of an individual owning intellectual property, and the idea that copyright somehow spurs innovation instead of snuffing it.