• 0 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle









  • The only solution is to fight it and kill it.

    That’s like saying the only way to get out of being hit by flying debris is to eliminate all wind on the planet. As much as we like to think of Threads as some corporate being, it’s not. It’s a hundred million people that are made of meat and have day jobs like you and me - the wind - and a few million bots and controlled accounts which attempt to influence [whatever their master wishes] - the debris. The debris is already here, and it’s people too - just people with nefarious or profiteering intent. It (debris) happens whenever there are enough people (enough wind) to stir things up.

    Cutting yourself off from people is the only way to prevent it because it’s an inherent function of humanity.





  • Oh, it definitely does. A copy does not need to be verbatim - derivative works, of which even an inaccurately memorized copy would certainly apply - to be infringing. Otherwise a re-encoded copy of a video - having been entirely changed through the encoding process - would be a new work. When I sing a song from memory, it’s effectively reproducing the equivalent recorded copy from my brain. Of course, the performance is yet a new copy - and I can be sued if I were to change the lyrics or notes outside of the specific contract under which I perform (performance) or record (mechanical). Broadway show owners do this all the time (prohibit changes of words and characters, among other alterations) - and generally they win in court if challenged, shutting down shows and cancelling performance rights


  • Would not the act of memorization an infringing copy? Copyright itself does not allow a provision where a non-ephemeral copy may be stored, regardless of the medium or duration. You would, of course, have the positive defense of fair use - if you were sued for your infringing copy, you could mount a defense that the storage falls under the fair use provisions, but you would still be required to defend yourself at your own expense. Would it make a difference if we, one day, developed a method of reading memories. Someone with a photographic memory could then be used to recreate the work from their copy - clearly a violation, and hence the storage is a violation (excepting backup/fairuse - which is still an infringement, but a special case of permitted infringement)