I mean, I'd like games to be available, but I don't see archive.org's legal basis for providing it. I mean, the stuff is copyrighted. Lack of commercial availability doesn't change that.
Yeah, some abandonware sites might try to just fly under the radar, and some rightsholders might just not care, might not be much value there. But once you're in a situation where a publisher is fighting a legal battle with you, you're clearly not trying that route.
You can argue that copyright law should be revised. Maybe copyright on video games should be shorter or something. Maybe there should be some provision that if a product isn't offered for sale for longer than a certain period of time, copyright goes away. But I don't think that this is the route to get that done.
Legal doesnt mean correct. Slavery used to be legal.
Copyright is a broken system that gives giant corporations the power to hold art ransom. There is no argument that holds up against art being preserved.
So no, copyright might have had use in the past but by now it is morally sound to pirate.
Their point was that archive.org is going to get fucked in court.
If thats the case they pushed a lot of pro IP sentiment with it.
It’s cruel that companies are even able to do shit like this and we should destroy them for it.
I don't see anything pro IP in their comment. They just stated the reality of the situation.
Maybe copyright on video games should be shorter or something. Maybe there should be some provision that if a product isn't offered for sale for longer than a certain period of time, copyright goes away. But I don't think that this is the route to get that done.
This person is playing devils advocate imo. Either they are very interested in law and facts and not much in justice or they‘re low level trolling. I cant say and I dont want to accuse them so I‘ll go with the former.
It is completely obvious imo that the IP scam is going rampant and companies are finding new ways to abuse customers every day, although the governments worldwide are pushing back (finally).
Still, stating it like this shows they could not care less and the lack of compassion with people who feel strongly about freedom and equality rubs me the wrong way.
Does this male more sense to you?
Lack of commercial availability doesn't change that.
But is there any reason why it doesn't?
You can argue that copyright law should be revised.
Maybe they could do more about it but what's already there is way way better than nothing.
Most people on Lemmy will flat-out tell you that they don't give a single fuck about copyright and that they have a right to anything that is reproducible. Not only that but they consider it a "moral imperative" to back up that copyrighted material and share it with others, no matter what that actual content is or who created it.
Well yes, but unironically. Do you really think we should just let data get lost?
No one was being ironic. I think you should do with the data whatever its creator licenses you to do with it. You are not entitled to others' work simply because it's reproducible.
I wonder to what degree that would still apply when it's their work (say, a photo) being used by others in any way they see fit.
Wouldn't change anything for me. If I put data on the internet, I put it under a permissive license. (AGPL for code, CC-BY-SA for everything else).
Agreed, those are pretty permissive licenses (though not completely free), but they're still licenses that you deliberately choose, not ones that were forced upon you.
Copyright is a law forced upon us. It is not some sort of natural state.
So are murder and traffic laws.
The point is that you have it backwards with the license choices. You don't have some sort of inherent right to prevent others from copying data you produce, it is a choice of society to grant you that exclusive right and if society deems it to do more harm than good to do so (e.g. because 90% of our culture is lost thanks to copyright after it is no longer commercially available but before copyright runs out) then society absolutely has the right to take your copyright away from you again.
In what way are they not completly free? Cuz you gotta keep the same license?
Copyleft licenses do force you to do certain things, like make your changes to the code available, and AGPL was made specifically to patch some GPL loopholes. They are technically less free than something like Apache which is essentially "do whatever you want, IDC..."
Which are more free depends how you look at it. If we limit the scope to just us then having no restrictions is more free than a copyleft licenses that have any restrictions. If we also consider our users then being able to do what we want includes not giving the same level of freedom to our users, and the same applies to our user's users. A restriction on us denying freedom ensures gives freedom to others.
If we also consider our users
GPL doesn't give your users any benefits, only headaches. It does benefit your user's users, and yourself.
But I get what you're writing. While I agree GPL is better, I don't agree it's more free. Enforced freedom can't be more free than absolute freedom. Purely from a philosophical standpoint.
I'm of the opinion that a cookie on your desk takes more willpower to resist eating rather it being in a locked box in the kitchen. I consider even devs with good intentions to not have perfect resistance to temptation at all times, and so being legally compelled to not deny users software freedom via AGPL is a benefit to my users as it helps them resist any temptation 😇
As far as I understand, you only have to make your changes to the code available to users of your software. You are free to make any modifications as long as you keep them to yourself and don't share the binaries (or access the service, in case of AGPL) with anyone. I might be mistaken, though.
You're correct, but the point is that it's forcing you to do something. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is less free than Apache or MPL
Ah I get what you mean, I used to share your same view. I used to think that the MIT license was more free than GPL for the reasons you mentioned.
When Google started working on Fuchsia OS and they said it will be MIT license, I started to get worried that smart products producers would start using it instead of Linux. Then they wouldn't need to release the source code to customers as the software would no longer be GPL.
The difference is that MIT gives more freedom to the producers, while GPL gives more freedom to the consumers.
Personally, my sympathy goes to consumers, not producers, thus I understood why people say GPL is more free than say Apache or MIT.
Licenses such as MIT, Apache, MPL, etc... are a double-edged sword. 😬
That's great, how many millions of dollars or thousands of hours did you spend creating that work?
If you want to give away your work to the public, that's your prerogative. That doesn't entitle you to the works of others.
I mean, I'd like games to be available, but I don't see archive.org's legal basis for providing it. I mean, the stuff is copyrighted. Lack of commercial availability doesn't change that.
Yeah, some abandonware sites might try to just fly under the radar, and some rightsholders might just not care, might not be much value there. But once you're in a situation where a publisher is fighting a legal battle with you, you're clearly not trying that route.
You can argue that copyright law should be revised. Maybe copyright on video games should be shorter or something. Maybe there should be some provision that if a product isn't offered for sale for longer than a certain period of time, copyright goes away. But I don't think that this is the route to get that done.
Legal doesnt mean correct. Slavery used to be legal.
Copyright is a broken system that gives giant corporations the power to hold art ransom. There is no argument that holds up against art being preserved.
So no, copyright might have had use in the past but by now it is morally sound to pirate.
Their point was that archive.org is going to get fucked in court.
If thats the case they pushed a lot of pro IP sentiment with it.
It’s cruel that companies are even able to do shit like this and we should destroy them for it.
I don't see anything pro IP in their comment. They just stated the reality of the situation.
This person is playing devils advocate imo. Either they are very interested in law and facts and not much in justice or they‘re low level trolling. I cant say and I dont want to accuse them so I‘ll go with the former.
It is completely obvious imo that the IP scam is going rampant and companies are finding new ways to abuse customers every day, although the governments worldwide are pushing back (finally).
Still, stating it like this shows they could not care less and the lack of compassion with people who feel strongly about freedom and equality rubs me the wrong way.
Does this male more sense to you?
But is there any reason why it doesn't?
It already has been, there is a ruling that allows an exemption to copyright law for the specific use of preservation by libraries and museums.
Maybe they could do more about it but what's already there is way way better than nothing.
Most people on Lemmy will flat-out tell you that they don't give a single fuck about copyright and that they have a right to anything that is reproducible. Not only that but they consider it a "moral imperative" to back up that copyrighted material and share it with others, no matter what that actual content is or who created it.
Well yes, but unironically. Do you really think we should just let data get lost?
No one was being ironic. I think you should do with the data whatever its creator licenses you to do with it. You are not entitled to others' work simply because it's reproducible.
I wonder to what degree that would still apply when it's their work (say, a photo) being used by others in any way they see fit.
Wouldn't change anything for me. If I put data on the internet, I put it under a permissive license. (AGPL for code, CC-BY-SA for everything else).
Agreed, those are pretty permissive licenses (though not completely free), but they're still licenses that you deliberately choose, not ones that were forced upon you.
Copyright is a law forced upon us. It is not some sort of natural state.
So are murder and traffic laws.
The point is that you have it backwards with the license choices. You don't have some sort of inherent right to prevent others from copying data you produce, it is a choice of society to grant you that exclusive right and if society deems it to do more harm than good to do so (e.g. because 90% of our culture is lost thanks to copyright after it is no longer commercially available but before copyright runs out) then society absolutely has the right to take your copyright away from you again.
In what way are they not completly free? Cuz you gotta keep the same license?
Copyleft licenses do force you to do certain things, like make your changes to the code available, and AGPL was made specifically to patch some GPL loopholes. They are technically less free than something like Apache which is essentially "do whatever you want, IDC..."
Which are more free depends how you look at it. If we limit the scope to just us then having no restrictions is more free than a copyleft licenses that have any restrictions. If we also consider our users then being able to do what we want includes not giving the same level of freedom to our users, and the same applies to our user's users. A restriction on us denying freedom
ensuresgives freedom to others.GPL doesn't give your users any benefits, only headaches. It does benefit your user's users, and yourself.
But I get what you're writing. While I agree GPL is better, I don't agree it's more free. Enforced freedom can't be more free than absolute freedom. Purely from a philosophical standpoint.
I'm of the opinion that a cookie on your desk takes more willpower to resist eating rather it being in a locked box in the kitchen. I consider even devs with good intentions to not have perfect resistance to temptation at all times, and so being legally compelled to not deny users software freedom via AGPL is a benefit to my users as it helps them resist any temptation 😇
As far as I understand, you only have to make your changes to the code available to users of your software. You are free to make any modifications as long as you keep them to yourself and don't share the binaries (or access the service, in case of AGPL) with anyone. I might be mistaken, though.
You're correct, but the point is that it's forcing you to do something. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is less free than Apache or MPL
Ah I get what you mean, I used to share your same view. I used to think that the MIT license was more free than GPL for the reasons you mentioned.
When Google started working on Fuchsia OS and they said it will be MIT license, I started to get worried that smart products producers would start using it instead of Linux. Then they wouldn't need to release the source code to customers as the software would no longer be GPL.
The difference is that MIT gives more freedom to the producers, while GPL gives more freedom to the consumers.
Personally, my sympathy goes to consumers, not producers, thus I understood why people say GPL is more free than say Apache or MIT.
Licenses such as MIT, Apache, MPL, etc... are a double-edged sword. 😬
That's great, how many millions of dollars or thousands of hours did you spend creating that work?
If you want to give away your work to the public, that's your prerogative. That doesn't entitle you to the works of others.