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
-
-
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 -
The idea that the Three Pillars of CDL are an act of voluntary generosity toward authors and publishers and they "didn't have to" abide by it is exactly why they're getting sued
1 reply 2 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
Like the publishers aren't stupid, they can see how people talk about this shit, they know what direction it's going in if they don't push back
3 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
you mean where authors and other content creators have ACTUAL control over their creations, not just subject to the whims of megacorporations that tell them what they can and can't do with their work?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Uhhhh how does CDL give authors "control over their creations" Chuck Wendig is an author, not a megacorporation, and people's response to him saying "I didn't consent for my work to end up here" was "cry moar"
3 replies 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
For the record, authors typically do retain primary copyright over their books I'm not saying the economics of publishing are fair or that publishers are innocent of ever pressuring authors to do things they don't want to do
3 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
typically, tho not always. and certainly doesn't hold for other copyrighted material.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Okay and copyright ceasing to exist completely gives authors more control how? You're saying the solution to corporations being able to bribe control of your work away from you is to never have any control in the first place?
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
except you would. under fraud. protection of property, among other laws. and it happens in fandom sphere all the time. how is a law that says you have no say over your work unless you conform to strict and stifling rulesets helping you in any way?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
You don't actually know how copyright works so I'm not sure this conversation is helpful I don't know what you mean by "fraud" here but by definition if you don't have copyright you can't control what people do with the copies they make of your work Like that's the definition
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Raptornx01 and
(I think you're confusing copyright with trademarks, which can be "lost" if not "defended" That's absolutely not how copyright works)
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
it would all fall under the purview of Intellectual Property rights. and it does, just not as vigorously as trademark. but it still happens.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.