this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
77 points (96.4% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

60266 readers
987 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know he wants to use all the data to train LLMs, but do you think this would positively affect the average person, or would the laws still target the little guys?

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 25 points 23 hours ago

Funny how they suddenly think IP laws are bad ehh

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 68 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah, they'll make corporations immune from it but the normal consumer will still have to deal with licensing hell

[–] SitD@lemy.lol 10 points 12 hours ago

semiconductor synapses have more natural rights than y'all soon 😂 work and pay, cattle

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 21 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Please keep in mind Jack Dorsey is just some guy who’s had the same shit idea twice.

[–] nick@midwest.social 2 points 8 hours ago

Not true, before he went full cryptorasputin, he also started Square, which legitimately helped small businesses. Note that I’m not talking about cash app, that’s genz dogshit, and the entire cash team is a bunch of fucking cringey memelord zoomers.

Source: me, I worked there. I was proud of the work I did up until he lost his mind.

Wonder what he’d think if I had released all our source code on GitHub, since ip is bad now 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

He absolutely doesn't want to get rid of them, just make large corporations immune from claims or maybe even able to take copyrights away from others. Abolishment of copyright goes against these people's core beliefs of control, they don't want copyright gone, they wish to control it.

[–] the_abecedarian@piefed.social 52 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would never trust a billionaire to do anything for us. If he doesn't just carve out an exception for only people like himself at first, he'll still lobby to have new restrictions on sharing if they threaten his business model.

It'll end up being a back-and-forth between him and the IP companies, so if he has enough leverage, they'll just find a way to give him what he wants without doing so for regular folks.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that's about what I expect from a billionaire.

[–] primemagnus@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He wants the poor not to have copyright laws. The rich will always keep their safeguards.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 22 hours ago

The poor already don't have copyright laws, and the rich continue to have their safeguards. This is already how it is.

What? You think those laws on the books are for you? No. Only the rich get to enforce those copyright laws.

It's even worse than saying there's no copyright laws, because the poor think they have them.

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He is an American oligarch, bad faith and dishonesty are to be expected in everything they say or do.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 17 hours ago

People who rule you and people who own the country are threat actors. Yet some how we got adult men larping their talking points and literally simping for these "daddies"

[–] Rodneyck@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Copyrights for good or bad, do protect the little guy. I am sure these mega corps would love to blast their lawsuits out to the little guys and bury them. He is a bad faith actor.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Part of the reason I was skeptical about Bluesky.

[–] Trihilis@ani.social 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I still don't get why people are moving to yet another centralised platform (bluesky is not truly decentralized).

No matter how much someone agrees or disagrees with the lemmy devs, the platform is decentralized and they can't really enshittify it.

[–] nullpotential@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Because most people don't know or care about that factor. They just move to whatever's easiest to use.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 17 hours ago

Society as a whole will need to learn these lessons before such proper shift happens. It will eventually happen since trajectory of enshitification has been set.

They are all future Linux users too, and they don't even know it lol

[–] FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I hope it popularizes the idea of algorithmic control.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 23 hours ago

Removing all copyright protections would essentially be a reset and would ultimately be a negative for society, even compared to now.

Now, on the trajectory that we're making, we're in a bad place and heading to a much worse place very quickly. We have to do something.

Getting rid of copyright protections entirely is not it. You must have protections for privacy and investment protections that encourage innovation. But where we are right now is entirely too far.

You must also consider AI as a pressing issue in ethics, with a WAY higher priority than copyright protections, but also with copyright protections as a variable.

Nothing is ever simple. Anybody who says anything is simple is manipulating you, and even the truth to that statement, itself, is complicated.

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 15 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Even if you did get rid of copyright (which they don't actually want, they just want a carve out for their LLMs) it wouldn't matter for anything owned by major players. For example, there was a gap in US music IP law for like 40 years for anything from before the system was nationalized in the 70's (IP rights were a state-level concern for music before that) but if you legally copied a Beatles album from the prior state system, the rightsholders would still sue you into oblivion by sheer force of lawyers and infinite money. In a system that allows the rich to use money to just grind you into dust with no recourse, what is actually legal is somewhat irrelevant, it's how many dollars of capital are you pissing off.

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a perspective that I had considered.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

there was a gap in US music IP law for like 40 years for anything from before the system was nationalized in the 70’s

The system is still shit, especially for music.

[–] bad_news@lemmy.billiam.net 1 points 18 hours ago

Always has been always will be, I have always been against "intellectual property"

[–] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Don't worry, the oligarchs also want to release any content they own as smart contract so ownership is eternal and a driver of blockchains. Then they want to make breaking DRM or smart contracts more heavily punished. "Protection for me, not for thee"

[–] Geodad@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 6 points 1 day ago

Who needs IP laws when you have EULAs that bar competition? Certainly not corporations with their armies of lawyers.