Just so we’re clear, the problem is that people are driven to suicide because of draconian punishment of copyright infringment, not that it isnt happening to people we dont like. Right?
I think the problem is that the law is likely to be applied differently to big organisations compared to individuals or smaller organisations, and that the intended purpose of copyright is mostly forgotten.
It was meant to protect creators ability to earn from what they produce for a while so that they would be encouraged to create and share with the world.
Big orgs monopolising access to scientific writing is not what it was for, and it definitely was not meant to have exceptions that let big orgs ignore the rights if creators in order to build software that then endangers the ability of individual creators to earn from what they create.
It was meant to protect creators ability to earn from what they produce for a while so that they would be encouraged to create and share with the world.
I think we both agree that the current copyright regime is not doing this. But I fail to see how expanding the rights of rightsholders to dictate how you use the works that you have acquired (which is what this suite is over) doesnt just make that issue worse. I would much prefer to see copyrights drastically slashed from the absurd semi-perpetual system that the USA has pushed on the world and things move into the public realm after a decade or two, without doing that giving people who inherited or bought the rights over a work completed a centrury ago the legal power to say “you cannot read this work in a way we dont like” is abhorent.
Carmen Ortiz murdered Aaron Swartz over much, much less infringement than this.
Just so we’re clear, the problem is that people are driven to suicide because of draconian punishment of copyright infringment, not that it isnt happening to people we dont like. Right?
I think the problem is that the law is likely to be applied differently to big organisations compared to individuals or smaller organisations, and that the intended purpose of copyright is mostly forgotten.
It was meant to protect creators ability to earn from what they produce for a while so that they would be encouraged to create and share with the world.
Big orgs monopolising access to scientific writing is not what it was for, and it definitely was not meant to have exceptions that let big orgs ignore the rights if creators in order to build software that then endangers the ability of individual creators to earn from what they create.
I think we both agree that the current copyright regime is not doing this. But I fail to see how expanding the rights of rightsholders to dictate how you use the works that you have acquired (which is what this suite is over) doesnt just make that issue worse. I would much prefer to see copyrights drastically slashed from the absurd semi-perpetual system that the USA has pushed on the world and things move into the public realm after a decade or two, without doing that giving people who inherited or bought the rights over a work completed a centrury ago the legal power to say “you cannot read this work in a way we dont like” is abhorent.