We generally had the reasonable rule that property ends at dead. Intellectual property extending beyond the grave is corporatist 21st century bullshit. In the past all writing got quickly into the public domain like it should. Depending on country within in at least 25 years of the publishing date to the authors dead. Project Gutenberg reflects the law and reasonable practice to allow writing to go into the public domain.
Good focus on 1 point, sadly bad point to focus on.
What is lawful and legal, is not what is moral.
The Holocaust was legal.
Try again. Let’s start. Should the invention of ai have an influence on how we treat data? Is there a difference between reproducing a work after the author’s death and using possible millennia of public domain data to destroy the economical validity of a profession? If there is, should public domain law consider that? Has the general public discuss these points and come to a consensus? Has that consensus been put in law?
No? Sounds like the law is not up to date to the tech. So not only is legal not Moral, legal isn’t up to date.
You understand the point of public domain, right? You understand that even if you were right (you aren’t), that it would resolve the other issues, right?
Yes. We should never have been idiotic with patents and other forms of gatekeeping information. Information is always free and all forms of controlling it is folly
Then don’t gatekeep e.g. your naked body and your loved one’s secrets! Information should always be fee and all forms of controlling it is folly! Do it. While you are at it, your, and your family’s, full name and place of employment please. Thanks!
Oh wait, you don’t want to do that right? Some information is private. You have some rights on some information. Ok then let’s talk about it.
We are talking about access to information and you said that it should be granted to everyone without any limitations. How are we not talking about that information?
Unless you are to finally admit that there is different kind of information and different rules that we apply to them, We are talking about your nudes too.
When you finally admit that, then we can have a discussion about what rules we apply to information. Then we can talk about “public information”. Until then, I don’t know what to tell you.
You talked about information. Not public, not private, information.
Your responses heavily imply that you think public and private information should be treated differently, but you keep talking about how information should be free and open. So you are willing and believing that there are rules. So why shouldn’t public information be public information while not being allowed to use for e.g. ai without permission? You can allow copying and modifying of information without allowing e.g. it being used for ai training. You can make that rule, just like you can different rules for private information than for public information.
I really don’t understand what you don’t understand.
Put it out and it’s public. At that point it is folly to regulate. If personal information is taken and spread, the culprit has committed a crime but in my opinion the rest is folly. I thought it was obvious so I omitted the intensely self explanatory details
We generally had the reasonable rule that property ends at dead. Intellectual property extending beyond the grave is corporatist 21st century bullshit. In the past all writing got quickly into the public domain like it should. Depending on country within in at least 25 years of the publishing date to the authors dead. Project Gutenberg reflects the law and reasonable practice to allow writing to go into the public domain.
Good focus on 1 point, sadly bad point to focus on.
What is lawful and legal, is not what is moral.
The Holocaust was legal.
Try again. Let’s start. Should the invention of ai have an influence on how we treat data? Is there a difference between reproducing a work after the author’s death and using possible millennia of public domain data to destroy the economical validity of a profession? If there is, should public domain law consider that? Has the general public discuss these points and come to a consensus? Has that consensus been put in law?
No? Sounds like the law is not up to date to the tech. So not only is legal not Moral, legal isn’t up to date.
You understand the point of public domain, right? You understand that even if you were right (you aren’t), that it would resolve the other issues, right?
Yes. We should never have been idiotic with patents and other forms of gatekeeping information. Information is always free and all forms of controlling it is folly
Then don’t gatekeep e.g. your naked body and your loved one’s secrets! Information should always be fee and all forms of controlling it is folly! Do it. While you are at it, your, and your family’s, full name and place of employment please. Thanks!
Oh wait, you don’t want to do that right? Some information is private. You have some rights on some information. Ok then let’s talk about it.
Not what we are talking about. But you know that. Do you want to explain how to police public information without it being folly?
We are talking about access to information and you said that it should be granted to everyone without any limitations. How are we not talking about that information?
Unless you are to finally admit that there is different kind of information and different rules that we apply to them, We are talking about your nudes too.
When you finally admit that, then we can have a discussion about what rules we apply to information. Then we can talk about “public information”. Until then, I don’t know what to tell you.
I work with ip and still think it is folly. Idk why you spam about private information, that’s not what anyone was asking or discussing about
You talked about information. Not public, not private, information.
Your responses heavily imply that you think public and private information should be treated differently, but you keep talking about how information should be free and open. So you are willing and believing that there are rules. So why shouldn’t public information be public information while not being allowed to use for e.g. ai without permission? You can allow copying and modifying of information without allowing e.g. it being used for ai training. You can make that rule, just like you can different rules for private information than for public information.
I really don’t understand what you don’t understand.
Put it out and it’s public. At that point it is folly to regulate. If personal information is taken and spread, the culprit has committed a crime but in my opinion the rest is folly. I thought it was obvious so I omitted the intensely self explanatory details