yeah, it's no different than Lars Ulrich calling Napster stealing. It's case by case too. AI could infringe copyright but the tech doesn't intrinsically infringe copyright.
In a general sense, when it comes to #copyright, I will agree that any of these can reasonably be called "stealing":
When a person or organisation applies to register copyright on a work they did not create and to whom that right was not assigned by the original creator. This is an egregious form of plagiarism.
When someone claims copyright on a work that's already in the #PublicDomain.
When someone asserts a copyright-based control on a work in the Public Domain because they have copyright on a reproduction of the work (e.g. a photograph of a renaissance painting)
When a government changes copyright law to bring a work, or a class of works already in the Public Domain back into copyright.
Everything else can be no worse than infringement.
right. But a lot of that is pedantic legalese most people don't understand and/or the law isn't real clear about. The Marvin Gaye estate vs Robin Thicke is egregious overreach but lawyers lol
If you get down to the spirit of its intent, it's to encourage creation. Not profit, that's just a framework
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •As I have seen yet another instance of the incorrect framing, I need to repost this:
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • — (Dublin, probably.) •And again...
It's not stealing.
It's infringement.
If we want to be taken seriously, we need to use the correct words!
#Copyright
Brendan Halpin reshared this.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •I make this point each time I see someone getting it wrong:
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • — (Dublin, probably.) •Yup. Yet another factually incorrect assertion spotted in the wild:
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •Yet again, I see a social media post with its hot take destroyed by this mistake:
Brendan Halpin reshared this.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •Yet another instance of ignorance spotted in the wild, causing my brain to force me to re-iterate:
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •I saw another one of these false assertions yesterday, so here we go:
Brendan Halpin reshared this.
Daniel Tuttle 🌵🤘
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Daniel Tuttle 🌵🤘 • •I agree it could be fair use or fair dealing.
However, my point is that, even if it's not fair use or dealing, it's still not stealing.
(Ooh! as I read that, it rhymes very neatly. I must note that down)
Daniel Tuttle 🌵🤘
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Daniel Tuttle 🌵🤘 • •Totally.
In a general sense, when it comes to #copyright, I will agree that any of these can reasonably be called "stealing":
Everything else can be no worse than infringement.
Daniel Tuttle 🌵🤘
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •right. But a lot of that is pedantic legalese most people don't understand and/or the law isn't real clear about. The Marvin Gaye estate vs Robin Thicke is egregious overreach but lawyers lol
If you get down to the spirit of its intent, it's to encourage creation. Not profit, that's just a framework