this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
325 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

72499 readers
3515 users here now

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


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Their motive is likely more profit but the result is an unjust restriction on user software freedom. It doesn't matter if they make less money, maximising profit is not why we grant them copyright. Nvidia is often unreasonable, fuck off Nvidia.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

maximising profit is not why we grant them copyright

That’s the only reason copyright exists. Because society decided that if you’re the one to put work into developing something, you should be the one reaping the profits, at least for some time.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, that's a lie. Copyright exists solely for the purpose "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" -- i.e., to enrich the Public Domain in the long run. Enabling creators to profit is nothing more than a means to that end.

[–] CbtB 12 points 1 year ago

Correct answer! And they were originally granted for, what, 7 years with possibly to extend to 14?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Society in general has not granted this, it was corrupt lawmakers. Notice the distinction of maximizing profits, no one says no profits should be had at all. But I'm pretty sure most of the people don't want companies to literally hold back progress of a whole field, of humanity in general just so their profits can be maximized. It's only the ones directly benefitting from this that would want this, or if you're brainwashed by those parties, otherwise you're just against your own best interests (and of the rest of humanity) which is irrational.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

no one says no profits should be had at all.

Actually quite a few of us do say that

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

No, it's really not the reason copyright exists. Granting a profit to authors and artists is just a means to an end. The actual purpose is to enrich the public domain. Or "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", as the US Constitution puts it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You could argue corporate lobbying has molded copyright for profit's sake (e.g. we can thank Disney for copyright lasting an unreasonably long time) but that's not all copyright does. Copyleft is a hack of copyright that lets people use software/media created by another but legally compels you to share it under the same license - meaning a greedy corporation can't just take your work and not share back.