• 7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m thinking about it from the perspective of an artist or creator under existing copyright law. You can’t just take someone’s work and republish it.

    It’s not allowed with books, it’s not allowed with music, and it’s not even allowed with public sculpture. If a sculpture shows up in a movie scene, they need the artist’s permission and may have to pay a licensing fee.

    Why should the creation of text on the internet have lesser protections?

    But copyright law is deeply rooted in damages, and if advertising revenue is lost that’s a very real example.

    And I have recourse; I used it. I used current law (DMCA) to remove over 1,000,000 pages because it was my legal right to remove infringing content. If it had been legal, they wouldn’t have had to remove it.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      This conversation makes me want to throw up, as most discussions that revolve around the DMCA usually do. Using rights under the DMCA doesn’t put you in very good company.

    • ricdeh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s not allowed with books

      Have you ever heard of the mysterious places called “libraries”? IA does not “republish” anything, it is an archive.

      • 7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Technically, each time that it is viewed it is a republication from copyright perspective. It’s a digital copy that is redistributed; the original copy that was made doesn’t go away when someone views it. There’s not just one copy that people pass around like a library book.