Technology

59672 readers

2914 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important (www.techdirt.com)

submitted 5 months ago by General_Effort@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

117 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The key problem is that copyright infringement by a private individual is regarded by the court as something so serious that it negates the right to privacy. It’s a sign of the twisted values that copyright has succeeded on imposing on many legal systems. It equates the mere copying of a digital file with serious crimes that merit a prison sentence, an evident absurdity.

This is a good example of how copyright’s continuing obsession with ownership and control of digital material is warping the entire legal system in the EU. What was supposed to be simply a fair way of rewarding creators has resulted in a monstrous system of routine government surveillance carried out on hundreds of millions of innocent people just in case they copy a digital file.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"No copyright" is usually flaunted by people who haven't created single thing of value (monetary or otherwise). Who never give, but always first to take.

To no one's surpise it's now a go-to argument of "statistical engine enthusiasts".

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Copyright sure was useful for all the artists who had their creations scraped from the “open web,” huh (I am in this bucket). It would literally bankrupt me to enforce it.

Copyright only serves the wealthy, and rarely if ever protects I normal individuals who are well enough off to afford legal remedy. This is due to the cost to enforce, which is beyond most creators and a drop in the bucket for the wealthy. It is intended to and has been updated consistently to do just that.

We need some kind of protection, but historically copyright ain’t it.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I'm all up for improvement or better system.

I'm against anarchy and copyright abolishment all toghether.

[–] stonerboner@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 5 months ago

Implementing a better system would effectively abolish copyright, but I’m pretty sure most people agree with your sentiment.

I’m an edge case where I don’t believe ideas/land/medicine/stars etc can’t or shouldn’t be “owned” by any one entity. It’s not feasible to expect it in practice, of course. But humans love to carve things up and arbitrarily assert ownership. Some traditional Native American ideas on this are the closest to what I’m chipping away at.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You just made two contradicting statements

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

Only if you have difficulties reading.