I’m not getting into how long a copyright should last. I don’t have a meaningful opinion on it.

What it seems people are overlooking (or forgiving?) is that the guy published a book about characters (IP) he doesn’t own. Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is theft.

Whether or not Amazon should option his material is irrelevant if he didn’t get permission to use it in the first place. I mean, fan fiction is one thing. Creative license and educational purposes could be argued. But he published a freaking book!

Do you think Zack Snyder should get to put out a Rebel Moon and call it “Rebel Moon: A Star Wars Story” without getting permission or paying for licensing? Is this the reality this sub believes we live in? If you write a novel and I read it and soon start writing better more successful stories based explicitly on your characters without crediting you or sharing in my profit, how would you feel? Should your work be public domain? Is that what you (collective) feel is best for “the public”?

I don’t really have an opinion on what should happen with the work either. I could see some cases where it would be a major loss for the public to have the work erased. This could be catastrophic for classic literature. For something so new and not having any established cultural significance (as much as you wish it did), I’d go with whatever a judge believes is best under the law. You’re welcome to argue the validity of the law, and I may agree with you, but that’s a different conversation.

Are you all children in here? Did you have nap time and your sippy today?

Everything you just said is the opposite of reality and facts. What’s going on in this sub?

There is a new work by an author using someone else’s intellectual property. That’s what’s this is about. That’s how they were sued.

Copyright laws specifically promote new ideas by punishing those who re-use existing ideas.

You can profit from others’ ideas by asking permission and paying a licensing fee. This happens all the time. It’s how business is done every day.

This entire sub is delusional. You believe in things which are untrue. You make things up to justify theft. It’s funny and it’s sad. I really don’t know where you get these irrational theories or how you’d ever justify them in a court.

If you want to live in literal communism, sure, you can establish that any idea anyone expresses belongs to the world. In the world we actually live in, we have laws protecting people’s intellectual property in order for them to generate content and profit from those original ideas. Otherwise, what’s the point of having an idea at all if anyone can make money from it. This further promotes new original ideas that aren’t derivative of existing ones. This is exactly what the OP stated and I agreed with.

K. Evidently reading the room is more important than reading the article.

I’m not defending anyone. I’m explaining the contradiction in the previous statement.

It’s mind boggling how anyone could possibly consider otherwise. Aside from your own life, there’s nothing more belonging to oneself than their thoughts.

Yes, copyright exists to encourage new works - which the author ignored by creating content violating copyright law. Never mind the public, this dude stole from the copyright holders. He’s a pirate and he got caught.

Focus on reading a book.
I can do it but I have to be in the mood. I wish it were all the time but it’s more like once a month. I’m trying to wean myself away from screens and be more mindful about spending more than a few minutes on a task. It’s a lifestyle change and a struggle.

Also; spelling, typing, and writing in print and cursive. I always type and write letters out of order.

The amount of people in this thread not reading more than the headline is mind numbing.

Hitachi Magic Wand.

Cooking.

It’s shocking to me the number of people I’ve come across who’ve no idea how to cook or find it to be too troublesome to do. Moreover, feeding yourself should be the single most primal skill for anyone to have.

I realize there’s a lot to unpack here. Some people are taught / learn to cook at a young age while some people have parents who’ve never cooked for themselves. Personal preference, finances, and scheduling play a huge part. The definitions of “cooking” and “feeding yourself” can vary widely. So, I’m not claiming everyone should know how to make a roast chicken dinner for four with sides and dessert. Although, I do think people should be at a level above boxed mac and cheese and microwaved air-fried chicken nuggets.

Cooking is, in my opinion, shopping for fresh foods and turning them into a meal. It’s about your health, your pleasure, and your finances.

!buyitforlife@sh.itjust.works

I’ve been using the same belt since the late '90s. I recently lost a bit of weight so I’m in the market for a new one. It’s tough trying to find a replacement for something that’s been with you for more than half your life.

FYI - “genuine leather” just means the material contains some leather and generally indicates that it’s the lowest quality.

Apple could care less about them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ask/comments/17wx1tq/whats_so_wrong_that_it_became_right/k9jzi63/

I just read an article about how they’re increasing advertising on their Fire TVs. Rest assured, an Amazon OS is an Advertising OS.

Although, from what I’ve gathered of public opinion online, there’s LOTS of people willing to forgo their privacy in exchange for free shit.

Edit: Oh…

They say they expect Vega to begin shipping on Fire TVs early next year.

And that article https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/after-luring-customers-with-low-prices-amazon-stuffs-fire-tvs-with-ads/

I was thinking more about whether the government has the right to protect people’s liberties at the expense of others’. I firmly believe that your rights are restricted as soon as they impose upon the rights of others. But the idea of it, even the codification of it, does not wholly prevent people from harming or obstructing others. A “free” society can not function without restrictions or punishments. Nor does this seem to be enough protection of our liberties in this world of freely expressing ourselves in real time to millions.

Post 9/11, our freedoms were restricted to ensure our freedoms. Covid required us to get vaccinated and wear masks to ensure people’s freedom of not getting sick from others. The freedom to speak in public is restricted to prevent harm or hysteria. Isn’t the government imposing taxes on citizens a limitation of their freedoms?

Places like China take these restrictions to the extreme so their society is less free than that found in the United States. Scandinavian countries are generally listed as “happier” than the United States but I wonder government regulations in those countries compare to America’s.

Personally, I’ve been of the belief that more restriction of speech (on social media) is better for society. But that’s mostly because of, I’ll just be frank about it, Trump and MAGA and Fox news. You’re right though - policy-wise - what’s the difference between the Arab Spring, BLM, Charlottesville, Jan6? They’re all a bunch of people getting together to express themselves. Just because you’re a moron, should that restrict your freedoms? Should less intelligent people or people with mental disorders be restricted from owning a firearm to protect themselves even though it may increase the risk of them harming themselves or others? Is freedom of speech different?

So, what’s the answer? How does a planet of social creatures who are permanently and instantly connected with one another live and promote a free and fair society while limiting oversight that might prevent atrocities?

I don’t think government-ing is the answer. Nor do I think our brains and emotions are evolved enough. Which just makes me nihilistic about the whole “humanity” thing. We’re doomed.

That was actually a super interesting, and somber, read.

It’s gets to, in part, the heart of free speech and government oversight. Even the opening C.S. Lewis quote is something worth applying to today’s (US) political parties. It’s difficult, for me, to consider the need to impose restrictions on the liberties of free people for the sake of a minor group of wrong doers.

Some topical issues I’m applying this perspective to are gun restrictions, Twitter, abortion, masks. I think we’re all quick to scream about what should be done to resolve the issue at the surface without taking a moment to consider the ramifications or the deeper causes driving the issue. Although, isn’t the deeper issue simply human nature? How do you solve that problem if not by imposing restrictions on the liberties of free people? Doesn’t a civil society require some level of restriction in order to foster trust and respect? Isn’t this why ancient civilizations created religion to begin with?

I mean, you have to admit that “free society” is an oxymoron.

It’s built upon communities that can congregate in one area and engage with other communities.
It’s not run by Wall Street or billionaire backed entities so the platform lacks an algorithm designed to keep your attention to show you ads.
It’s new, lacks the shine and polish of established platforms, and there’s a bit of friction with on-boarding and usage.

The statement reads well, and I’ll take them at their word, but if an algorithm exists to show you “relevant” content, they’re collecting data and using it keep you on the platform.

This has been my issue with ‘social media’ for the past ten(?) years. As soon as Instagram switch the default from chronological to what it thinks you want to see, it’s continued to be more and more shitified (so much that I no longer use it).

The beauty of the early days of social media was that it was real-time. I could see who was doing what right now. I could see what establishments were hosting events tonight. Instead, these platforms decided it was more to their benefit to show posts it thinks will keep you on the platform longer - to show you more ads. For me, this lead to finding out days later that things have happened I would have like to have done.

Wall Street run Social Media is garbage. Businesses, organizations, governments, etc., need to go back to publishing content on their own websites (or the Fediverse) and enabling RSS feeds.