I respect that you work in the arts. However, I think too many people worried about copyright think that things would look similar to the way they are today, but the situation would be radically different without copyright. For example, Disney wouldn’t exist. You wouldn’t have large corporations taking and not giving back, because those large corporations wouldn’t exist like they do now in the first place.

Not the person you’re asking, but I’d say yes. Don’t bother charging for bits, except for something like the bandcamp model, i.e. “yes, i could pirate this but i want to support the creator and it’s really easy to do so”.

We have better funding models now that we’ve solved the problem of copying at zero cost. Patreon is a good and popular one, as well as kickstarters. You can’t pirate something that doesn’t get made, which is the perfect solution. Other art like music also makes money off of things like live performances that can’t be digitized.

Note that the one aspect of copyright that I like is attribution requirements. I think it’s perfectly fine to hand out information to anyone, as long as you say “here’s this cool thing, this is who created it, and this is how you can give them money”.

I’d be fine with copyright going away altogether. People sometimes object to this on the grounds of “But Disney will just steal your ideas and make money off of them”. If their works don’t have copyright though, you can do the same right back to them.

This is also one reason that I appreciate generative AI. Short-term, yes it will help Disney and the like. Slightly longer-term, why would anyone give Disney money if you can generate your own Marvel movie yourself?

The genie also isn’t going back in the bottle. Copyright is a dead man walking. If you dislike what large companies like Disney are doing/going to do with generative AI, push for anyone training a model to be forced to let anyone whose work went into that model for free.

The original duration in the U.S. was 14 years, plus the option of a renewal for another 14. IMO we should move back to something close to that. One idea I’ve seen is that there’s an initial cost of however much for 7 years, and then the price doubles for every 7 year extension beyond that. Not even Disney can beat exponential growth, and it would force them to pick what they actually care about.

I’d also prefer explicit registration. We’re losing too many works because nobody’s sure who owns the copyright, and nobody knows if it’s safe to archive them.

I’d say that the original Star Wars trilogy should be public domain by now, for a concrete example. Disney can make new stories and characters in the universe and make money off of them, but everyone else should be able to as well.

Also as an aside, here’s Richard Stallman on why the term “intellectual property” shouldn’t be used. It’s an umbrella term that doesn’t really make sense, and more explicit terms like copyright or patents or trademark should be used.

deleted by creator

Oh also, it was kind of strange how little he mentioned AI. I like how he wrote that the AI wasn’t trusted to be a Swordholder because it was “too logical”. Completely missed the boat on ChatGPT. “Write a play in which Harry Potter pressed the button to destroy humanity, and then act it out” or something like that would be all it takes.

It was also strange that hundreds of years in the future, humans are still doing hard manual labor. Where are the robots?

Those verses don’t conflict with evolution. They don’t conflict with anything, because they don’t mean anything. What scientific advancements happened because of those verses? None, because science advanced to the point where we understood how evolution works, and some religious people copied their homework and went looking for meaning after the fact. If those verses meant something, there would have been centuries of progress on evolution before Darwin. There wasn’t.

There’s plenty of things you can convince me of, you just have to provide evidence, which you haven’t done.

What could I say that would sway you into realizing that your religion is as silly as the rest? If the answer is nothing under the sun, then you’re using a cheap rhetorical trick of projecting your intellectual shortcomings onto other people in order to make yourself feel better about them.

He designed you then made your design better. He formed you then made your forms better. We created them and strengthened their forms.

That’s not how any of this works. None of these require the process of biological evolution, they’re clearly written as the islamic equivalent of intelligent design. Those describe some wizard creating something and then working to make it better, which is the opposite of how biological evolution works. Relying on “evolves” having several different meanings (evolves (strengthens in its form)) is not an argument that is made in good faith. The process of biological evolution is not described in any religious literature, including yours.

And Allah has created from water every living creature

I assume you bolded this because it’s important somehow. It’s not, though. It’s a vague allegory that has no predictive power, is not science, and has nothing to do with the process of biological evolution.

At some point you’re advocating for Deism. Which is fine enough, but doesn’t really provide any satisfactory answers. You need to define exactly what you mean by “God” before any further useful conversation can be had.

The scientific process, including evolution, has dispelled the myths found in any religious textbook ever written, including their particular definitions of “God”. I’d suggest you just drop the word and the associated baggage, and start from scratch. Come up with a new word, and define properties for it that make a coherent argument.

Better than Dreamworks, though

Watching Parks & Rec for the first time, and I also noticed this. IMO it’s missing something, maybe if only one of the characters acted that way towards him or something it would be better. He’s pretty much Meg from Family Guy, and I never really cared for that dynamic either.

I think it works there because it’s just Michael Scott that despises him, everyone else sees him as fairly normal from what I recall.

Yes those are also examples of AI, see relevant Wikipedia article:

AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet

We need better terms to specify exactly what we mean, e.g. a numeric scale of intelligence or maybe even something more complex like a radar chart.

I Have No Meowth, and I Must Scream

They’d have to have a democracy in order for it to be called a democracy

After you hit a billion dollars, you should get a party and a nice trophy that says “You Won Capitalism!”, and then you should start from scratch again.

Just saw this community on the lemmy.world community list and it’s now a new favorite: !iso@lemmy.world

It is decentralized. None of the issues you bring up are proof of centralization. If you get banned from one instance or don’t like email verification or whatever your beef is, find an instance with whatever policies you like. If you can’t find such an instance, start your own.

If nobody federates with you because your instance is full of people that got banned from everywhere else, that’s decentralization in action and maybe you should stop to consider if there’s a reason nobody wants to interact with you?

Wheel of Time on Amazon should’ve been animated. It might not have sold as well or whatever the execs wanted but it would’ve been way cheaper to produce something so much better.

I’m sure Google has their own shitty reasons, but also get bent, shitheads 🖕