Lots of people don't support copyright. It's a concept that should be abolished in it's current form. Right to attribution is OK. Ability to restrict other forms of use is not OK.
Does that mean if someone spends time and effort writing a book or painting a picture that I can resell it for less than them without their permission?
Why would any fan of someones work buy a knock-off copy? We can safely assume they are a fan, otherwise why would even buy it?
Also, painting is a physical object. It's a one of a kind.
EDIT: your objection and many many other questions like that are nicely argued against here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
(The Surprising History of Copyright talk by Karl Fogel)
Do you support mandatory cavity searches after every shopping trip? Property laws are important, you should do your part to uphold them.
I think this kind of client-side hashing and comparing to a database list is similar to the scanners at every Wal-Mart and the procedures at airports.
I don't remember airport security scanners at my local supermarket.
1 reply →
Lots of people don't support copyright. It's a concept that should be abolished in it's current form. Right to attribution is OK. Ability to restrict other forms of use is not OK.
Does that mean if someone spends time and effort writing a book or painting a picture that I can resell it for less than them without their permission?
Why would any fan of someones work buy a knock-off copy? We can safely assume they are a fan, otherwise why would even buy it?
Also, painting is a physical object. It's a one of a kind.
EDIT: your objection and many many other questions like that are nicely argued against here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI (The Surprising History of Copyright talk by Karl Fogel)
3 replies →