Want to wade into the sandy surf of the abyss? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youāll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post ā thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Previously, on Awful:
Quoting Anarchism Triumphant, an extended sneer against copyright:
Or more politely, previously, on Lobsters:
Were we anti-copyright leftists really so invisible before, or have you been assuming that No True Leftist would be anti-copyright?
If you look at data in the way that best obscures what it actually means, of course it canāt be told apart from other data. Binary is simply a way to encode information that most often has an analogue equivalent. You can of course question the copyright of all works, but looking at them in a hex editor is almost a distraction.
This is getting pretty close to technolibertarianism. Corbin, I like your posts but i canāt get behind this
TL; DR: please forgive my ignorance on this topic:
Iāll be the first to admit that Iām not a āgoodā leftist in the sense that I donāt do a ton of reading, and didnāt think too hard about copyright at this level. I did try do some reading because the anti-copyright takes as I encountered them in this context initially seemed iffy, but through research I found that my initial ideas werenāt well informed.
The most common form of anti-copyright sentiment Iāve encountered comes from mostly the piracy community. I donāt really participate in the community part of that, so I havenāt spent a lot of time reading any of their theory or philosophy, which has been to my detriment here. That being said, the stuff that I have seen has been mostly from a place of entitlement, so I felt safe in not exploring the literature.
Also, basically all of my recent reading of leftist material has had no focus on copyright. Itās all been economic, geopolitical stuff. That isnāt to say copyright issues arenāt important, it just hasnāt been in focus.
Anyway, this all started on my end because, in a discord server unrelated to this instance, I had expressed consternation over individual artists getting fucked over by AI companies, and celebrating whenever they clawed back whatever amount of justice they could. This was immediately in bad faith equated with full throated support for Disneyās ruthless copyright lawyer army. I didnāt really understand why that was happening, so I did some reading, and thought it was worth sharing about here.
So to specifically answer this:
More the former than the latter, but only due to my blind ignorance. The latter was not my assumption. I had encountered someone claiming to be a leftist but was not, for reasons unrelated to being anti-copyright.
@corbin
ā[Copyright i]s not for you who love to make art and prize it for its cultural impact and expressive power, but for folks who want to trade art for money.ā
Fatuous romantic bollocks.
the concept that copyright is about art or artistic value and not money, is about as attached to reality as the ai technorapture
this barely has to even be argued, in spirit or in practice. even the concept of āownershipā as ascribed to creators is basically just a right to sell the work or sublicense said āownershipā
@ebu
āthe concept that copyright is about art or artistic value and not moneyā
I didnāt say it was.
āReal artists do it for love, not moneyā is as stupid as saying āReal artists shoot heroin and have untreated mental illness.ā
Real artists have bills to pay and families to feed.
you definitely did in fact say that the idea that ācopyright is about trading art for moneyā is bollocks. that is in fact a thing you said, straightforwardly
compare and contrast with āreal artists do it for love, not moneyā, which is a thing nobody in this entire thread said
and wouldnāt you know it, a complete devolution into full-tilt āāādebateāāā shadowboxing is my cue to turn off notifications. best of luck in the ring, i hear the spectre of communism has a nasty left hook
Thanks! Youāre getting better with your insults; thatās a big step up from your trite classics like āsweet summer childā. As long as youāre here and not reading, letās not read from my third link:
Maybe youāre a little busy with your Biblical work-or-starve mindset, but I encourage you to think about why we even have copyright if it must be flaunted in order to become a skilled artist. Itās worth knowing that musicians donāt expect to make a living from our craft; we expect to work a day job too.
well there you have it
bitter winter adult it is