The CDL position paper doesn't say that "close" is good enough, it goes into all this stuff about how much effort they went to to develop a system to carefully track all borrowing to make ABSOLUTELY SURE the system doesn't let two borrowed copies exist for one physical copy EVER
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
It changed from "We rigorously maintain the 1:1 ratio by the best technological means available because it's one of the 'pillars' of our whole legal defense" to "We have an infinite ratio but that's okay because there's a lot of physical books out there somewhere not being read"
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
Like look set aside the moral argument (if you think morally copyright shouldn't exist at all and authors should be compensated purely through voluntary tip jars fine, whatever) The whole CDL thing is this elaborately constructed and technologically expensive LEGAL defense
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
They themselves said "We put a lot of work into these Three Pillars that are the whole reason we don't get sued" (collecting the archive of physical books, the tracking system to preserve the ratio, the self-destructing DRM on the files themselves)
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
Then they said "Oh nvm we can push a button to turn off Pillar #2 if we feel like it" Why would you act surprised that this would upset the people they were trying to reassure by creating Pillar #2 in the first place
1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes -
not an issue of surprise. bootlickers & copyright trolls will do their thing regardless. an expected action does not absolve them of being called out for BS. IA acted for the good of the people, for a limited time. keeping the other limits in place, which they didn't have to.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @arthur_affect and
you yourself say how they did this knowing the result. which means they were under no obligation to keep the other limits. yet they did. during a crisis they helped out the less fortunate, and rich privileged people are crying about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @arthur_affect and
i would very much like to live in your world where every author who's nervous about this situation is "rich" and "privileged"
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TylerMoody @arthur_affect and
or spoonfed BS propaganda by those that are. it's only been in recent years that people have even begun to realize you could get an audience WITHOUT being part of the major publishing houses. and that has been making the megacorps shit their pants.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Raptornx01 @TylerMoody and
An audience that, typically, doesn't pay you any money and therefore is materially useless to you if you need to make rent
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes
Like seriously the reason I shifted my POV dramatically on this isn't really any abstract statement of principle over "ownership" or "property" It's just the material facts on the ground
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
It's never been easier for artists to get likes and retweets, definitely Getting dollars? Not so much
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
Bah. Trying to follow this is much harder after this twerp blocked me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.