leftism is when heckin basic human empathy o algo welcome to politics brother 💀 💀 💀 💀 💀 💀 💀
Replying to @charlotte@mastodon.ml
"thou shalt not automate" carl max
Replying to @charlotte@mastodon.ml
@charlotte fellas is it right-wing to abolish copyright
Replying to @Flaky@furry.engineer
@Flaky i heart reproducing the current socioeconomic relations of the current society
Replying to @charlotte@mastodon.ml
so copyright hasn’t been abolished, nor will it be abolished, it’s just that the laws do not apply to capitalists, as usual
Replying to @charlotte@mastodon.ml
@charlotte @ug @Flaky fair use was not in the US constitution and therefore was very much not "as designed". a law that can't change to meet new forms of intellectual labor is a broken legal system, and the laws accepted as valid by individuals forms the individual's personal legal system
Replying to @hipsterelectron@circumstances.run
@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky but there's absolutely nothing extraordinary happening here. the property owner receives the compensation in the end. nobody's ever promised it's for public benefit
copyright worked exactly as designed, as a system of property on non material goods. whether or not it's a good system, and whether or not intellectual property is even a meaningful concept are two different questions
Replying to @charlotte@mastodon.ml
@charlotte @ug @Flaky transformative fair use in US law does in fact very specifically describe "public benefit" as a component of the multi-factor balancing test. the two hachette vs IA decisions are very well written and approachable on this matter, and very specifically describe the ebook lending system as heinous and not something the court has the power to fix. that's a flaw with the legislative and court system to support your point
Replying to @hipsterelectron@circumstances.run
@charlotte @ug @Flaky furthermore i see it as a fundamental failure that a patent or copyright can be transferred from the creator, and that's not actually at all part of the original conception of copyright either. it is also absolutely something that can be legislated, and banning it is quite literally a component of my insane software license nobody will use. i don't think i disagree with your analysis until you raise the spectre of "as designed". i think that's nihilist is all
Replying to @hipsterelectron@circumstances.run
@charlotte @ug @Flaky a corporation which did not produce the labor cannot receive the protections assigned to labor, and moreover the concept of paying for the copyright or patent actually removes a human right assigned to the laborer, which i believe is facially contradictory to any system of human rights. i will absolutely die before i get anyone else to agree on this because as we all agree the colonialist slaver legal system of the US is fucked and working as designed to stimy human rights
Replying to @hipsterelectron@circumstances.run
@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky just like a corporation doesn't produce the labor on the factory floor, the workers do! it's not a novel phenomenon, the fact that the product is immaterial just makes it sound rather absurd, but it's been happening since approximately the black death
Replying to @hipsterelectron@circumstances.run
@hipsterelectron @ug @Flaky but the fact that results in the alienation of the products of labor from the worker isn't exactly a bug, that's literally the same across any industry under capitalism. it's more visible on the factory floor, but the fact that a large publisher owns the products of their workers and extracts profit out of them (by, say, suing someone creating derivative works without a proper license) isn't a failure, that's the entire design of the system, even if it does result in alienation