How Facebook is Stealing
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
This isn't a case of "stealing". The makers of these videos didn't lose anything. Facebook is just also benefiting from them, possibly a result of copyright infringement, but copyright is unjust.
Facebook does many bad things, but I don't think this is one of them.
I disagree about copyright my friend let me explain you why:
If copyright stop existing then copyleft would be impossible.
Then free software would stop being. I could take source code change software and distribute binaries for a price. The original software developer won't be able to stop me, as she doesn't hold any rights to the work even with GPLv3. And I'll be selling it as binaries.
Now my work could still be redistributed because I don't have copyright, but that won't mean it is distributed with source code as the abolition of copyright doesn't necessarily mean obligation to distribute source code.
So there would be a lot of "gratis" but probably even less free software.
And as I know I won't hold copyright to my work, I may be tempted in a way many actual "gratis" software does, to compensate through advertising and spyware on my binaries.
People won't care in the same way today don't care about Free Software and stay on Windows even after we show them GNU/Linux as I am pretty sure you have experienced.
Even more people would still be paying for software as they are doing right now even when we already have better and gratis.
Now there is a significant difference between "copyright law is injust" and "copyright is injust" because copyright is probably necessary but with a different approach on the copyright law
Then what we can say about Facebook is that they are stealing not because they are sharing "copyright work" but because they are using others people works to take credit for something that doesn't exist, like the examples the video expose.
And when you buy something (advertising) under deception, getting less or nothing that you pay for, and someone else(Facebook) getting an unfairly gain, that's fraud.
So maybe I should have used fraud :) but I wanted no respect the original title of the work
I am a translator!
meh, faecesbook, the place where suckers grow like mushrooms. ^^
----
https://podupti.me/
> If copyright stop existing then copyleft would be impossible.
Yes, and that would be unfortunate, but even considering that I am against the existence of copyright. Consider the following:
1. If copyright were abolished, any proprietary program with source code available would become libre. You'd be surprised how many of these there are.
2. Without copyright, the usual method of selling copies would not be any better of an option for proprietary software than for libre software, unless the program is proprietary and implements an effective digital restriction scheme. This would create a disincentive to make most programs proprietary.
3. There have been some cases where people have reverse-engineered proprietary binaries (typically of video games) so much that they can competently make quite drastic changes (ROM hacks). In some cases, I would argue that abolition of copyright would effectively render them as libre programs (such as in the case of many ScummVM-supported adventure games).
I can't predict whether libre software would be better off or worse off from the abolition of copyright, but if it's worse of, it wouldn't be that much worse, I don't think. Compared to the benefit of not having our culture locked up, I thinnk it would be overall a small loss.
> And as I know I won't hold copyright to my work, I may be tempted in a way many actual "gratis" software does, to compensate through advertising and spyware on my binaries.
Sure, but that's a transition from one kind of proprietary program (one that you sell copies of, utilizing copyright) to another kind of proprietary program, so there's no net loss from that.
The only net loss is where copylefted programs can be made proprietary, or incorporated into proprietary programs. But without copyright, antifeatures are the only incentive to make a program proprietary, so I think there would be very few cases where it would be successful. For example, if Photoshop has an antifeature that effectively prevents people from redistributing copies, but a user base that tolerates these antifeatures, then it could be to Adobe's advantage to make parts of the GIMP proprietary. But if we're talking about just some random person taking the GIMP and making a proprietary version, any such antifeatures would drive people away from it (new features are not likely to be compelling enough), and without them, people would just be redistributing it gratis if it's any good, so the profit from doing this would not really be great enough to justify it.
>I can't predict whether libre software would be better off or worse off from the abolition of copyright, but if it's worse of, it wouldn't be that much worse, I don't think. Compared to the benefit of not having our culture locked up, I thinnk it would be overall a small loss.
I think you are right in many points. Is not that I am pro copyright.
I just think that is really hard to legislate, because there are lots of entities involved. And has lots of points of view in consideration.
Perhaps abolition of copyright and obligation of sharing if asked.
Is a really complex matter. But I definitely agree copyright law is not for the best of the majority right now.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti