Logs: liberachat/#haskell
| 2021-07-06 09:31:40 | <tdammers> | https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 <- relevant reading |
| 2021-07-06 09:31:43 | → | __monty__ joins (~toonn@user/toonn) |
| 2021-07-06 09:32:05 | → | xff0x joins (~xff0x@2001:1a81:5361:2500:9aff:3f7d:a108:43b8) |
| 2021-07-06 09:32:12 | × | acidjnk_new quits (~acidjnk@p200300d0c72b9556fc4d5c290a2b1a2d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2021-07-06 09:32:22 | <merijn> | tdammers: I skipped past the beginning and was like "this sounds like Paranoia..." |
| 2021-07-06 09:32:34 | <merijn> | Scroll back up "ah, it *is* talking about Paranoia!" |
| 2021-07-06 09:32:35 | → | acidjnk_new joins (~acidjnk@p200300d0c72b9556fc4d5c290a2b1a2d.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 2021-07-06 09:33:06 | <tdammers> | yes, as an illustrative example |
| 2021-07-06 09:34:05 | × | dunkeln quits (~dunkeln@188.71.194.238) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2021-07-06 09:34:07 | × | boxscape_ quits (~boxscape_@p4ff0ba7a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Quit: Connection closed) |
| 2021-07-06 09:34:35 | → | boxscape_ joins (~boxscape_@p4ff0ba7a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 2021-07-06 09:34:44 | <merijn> | Paranoia seems like a great game and one of these days I will run a campaign :) |
| 2021-07-06 09:34:57 | <tdammers> | but the gist of it: it is possible that you have two files that are bit-for-bit identical, and you can legally copy one, but not the other |
| 2021-07-06 09:35:47 | → | dunkeln_ joins (~dunkeln@188.71.194.238) |
| 2021-07-06 09:35:56 | <dminuoso> | This is why the concept of "intellectual property" is weird and flawed. |
| 2021-07-06 09:35:59 | <[exa]> | merijn: for me it's a straightforward model for the copyright problem with the scrapped code |
| 2021-07-06 09:36:54 | <tdammers> | dminuoso: I don't think this is the core of what's wrong about intellectual property |
| 2021-07-06 09:36:55 | <[exa]> | certainly not trying to push for copyright there, but you know, just giving credit to original authors |
| 2021-07-06 09:37:12 | <dminuoso> | tdammers: Let me rephrase, it's one reason why it's weird and flawed. |
| 2021-07-06 09:37:26 | <dminuoso> | Or perhaps a consequence of being weird. |
| 2021-07-06 09:37:31 | <[exa]> | can the generator list the authors of the code that "inspired" the output? That would work. |
| 2021-07-06 09:37:39 | <tdammers> | dminuoso: I would say it's a symptom, and just removing the "coloredness" wouldn't make things any better |
| 2021-07-06 09:38:31 | <merijn> | Counter-point: Humans and weird and flawed, so any system designed by humans automatically ends up being weird and flawed too |
| 2021-07-06 09:38:43 | <tdammers> | think about it. if you had a file on your computer that you generated randomly, but it happens to coincide with a similar file on someone else's computer that has copyright on it, a file that you have no idea even existed, a file that has never been anywhere near your computer - you'd still be committing copyright infringement |
| 2021-07-06 09:39:31 | <tdammers> | what's really flawed is the entire concept of copyright itself, that is, the idea that whoever created a "work" should get the ultimate say in who is allowed to make copies and derived works of it |
| 2021-07-06 09:39:45 | <[exa]> | tdammers: not really (except you'd be jailed as false negative anyway) |
| 2021-07-06 09:39:54 | → | krz3si joins (~szara@2a02:a31c:853b:b780:df0:1631:dcb9:4e4f) |
| 2021-07-06 09:40:27 | <tdammers> | [exa]: I'm talking about a hypothetical world in which copyright law doesn't care about "color", that is, copyright law only looks at the actual bits and bytes, not how they came about |
| 2021-07-06 09:40:57 | <tdammers> | [exa]: in reality, the law *does* look at those things, which is why it is possible to have two identical files and hold the copyright for one of them but not the other |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:00 | <dminuoso> | [exa]: If a court rules you are guilty, you are guilty. |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:13 | <boxscape_> | hm I wonder if there's any legal precedence about the minimum number of bits a work needs to have to be copyrightable |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:15 | <dminuoso> | The law does not care about facts, just about what can be argued and proven. |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:31 | <dminuoso> | Legally speaking, there's no innocent people in jail. |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:32 | <[exa]> | interesting |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:43 | <dminuoso> | They are in jail precisely because they have been ruled to be guilty. |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:48 | <tdammers> | boxscape_: there isn't, because there is no such number. what is copyrightable is not so much a matter of file size or theoretical information content, what matters is that it is "recognizable" |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:55 | <boxscape_> | hm I see |
| 2021-07-06 09:41:58 | <tdammers> | or "significant", or whatever |
| 2021-07-06 09:42:21 | <tdammers> | in a nutshell, if a typical human would say that it looks like it's derived, then it is |
| 2021-07-06 09:42:33 | <boxscape_> | okay |
| 2021-07-06 09:42:38 | <[exa]> | do we have some chance to legally separate the mechanism (copyright&licensing) from the actual civilized aims (giving credit)? |
| 2021-07-06 09:42:45 | <tdammers> | and one important reason why raw information content is irrelevant is because is also depends on cultural context |
| 2021-07-06 09:43:00 | × | gioyik quits (~gioyik@gateway/tor-sasl/gioyik) (Quit: WeeChat 3.1) |
| 2021-07-06 09:43:30 | <tdammers> | "Giving credits" is not the aim. Moral rights cover that. |
| 2021-07-06 09:43:57 | <[exa]> | "moral rights" ? |
| 2021-07-06 09:44:16 | × | Kaiepi quits (~Kaiepi@nwcsnbsc03w-47-54-173-93.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.nb.bellaliant.net) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2021-07-06 09:44:22 | <[exa]> | (these technically exist?) |
| 2021-07-06 09:44:35 | <tdammers> | Yes. As the creator of a work, you get to say how it may be used, and you are entitled to being credited as the author. Those are called "moral rights", and they are independent from copyright |
| 2021-07-06 09:45:05 | × | maf654321 quits (~maf654321@user/maf654321) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2021-07-06 09:45:29 | <tdammers> | I can sell the copyright to a song I wrote, and that means I can no longer distribute copies of it in any way, but I still get to veto, say, cover versions that make significant changes to the composition, I am still entitled to being credited as the songwriter, etc. |
| 2021-07-06 09:45:51 | <[exa]> | is this actually anchored in law somewhere? |
| 2021-07-06 09:46:00 | <tdammers> | Yes, I'm fairly sure it is. |
| 2021-07-06 09:46:03 | <__monty__> | I don't think you can actually sell your copyright. |
| 2021-07-06 09:46:04 | <[exa]> | b/c I never heard about it and it seems too great |
| 2021-07-06 09:46:25 | <__monty__> | You can only enter into an agreement that someone gets to exercise your rights in your stead. |
| 2021-07-06 09:47:06 | <dminuoso> | __monty__: Is that not selling copyright? What's the difference? |
| 2021-07-06 09:47:08 | <tdammers> | __monty__: at least in an employment situation, you can very much sign an agreement that says that your employer owns the copyright to everything you make as part of your employment |
| 2021-07-06 09:47:26 | <dminuoso> | Most rights can be subrogated. |
| 2021-07-06 09:47:35 | <tdammers> | __monty__: but you are right, the term "selling copyright" is often used sloppily to indicate "granting a perpetual exclusive copyright license" |
| 2021-07-06 09:47:44 | <merijn> | tdammers: Moral rights differ by country |
| 2021-07-06 09:47:51 | <tdammers> | merijn: true |
| 2021-07-06 09:48:08 | <merijn> | In most cases you don't actual get to veto things, except "morally reprehensible" uses |
| 2021-07-06 09:48:18 | <__monty__> | dminuoso: The difference is that you cannot ever actually lose the right. You can always break the contract and suffer the consequences. |
| 2021-07-06 09:48:30 | <merijn> | Like, if google bought the rights to your song and you object to Google, you probably can't stop them from using it in a commercial |
| 2021-07-06 09:48:40 | <merijn> | (However reprehensible you might find google) |
| 2021-07-06 09:49:46 | <merijn> | but if someone bought the rights to your song to use in nazi propaganda you could probably put a stop to that via moral rights (within Europe, in the US you are probably fucked anyway) |
| 2021-07-06 09:50:17 | <__monty__> | tdammers: Possible, I don't remember whether work for hire can have you end up without any copyright whatsoever as opposed to shared copyright. |
| 2021-07-06 09:50:20 | <tdammers> | well, I know for a fact that when you publish a cover version of some song that is considered an "adaptation", the copyright is usually held by a music publisher and exploited via a copyright agency, and you need to clear the rights with them, but you *also* have to get the actual songwriters to OK you on the moral rights front |
| 2021-07-06 09:51:03 | <merijn> | tdammers: I highly doubt that last bit |
| 2021-07-06 09:51:29 | × | Franciman quits (~francesco@openglass.it) (Quit: WeeChat 2.3) |
| 2021-07-06 09:52:37 | <merijn> | tdammers: Seems rather limited: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morele_rechten |
| 2021-07-06 09:53:44 | <tdammers> | yeah, but note this bit: "het recht zich te verzetten tegen elke andere wijziging in het werk;" |
| 2021-07-06 09:53:59 | → | LukeHoersten joins (~LukeHoers@user/lukehoersten) |
| 2021-07-06 09:54:15 | → | Kaiepi joins (~Kaiepi@nwcsnbsc03w-47-54-173-93.dhcp-dynamic.fibreop.nb.bellaliant.net) |
| 2021-07-06 09:54:57 | <merijn> | yeah, but that's not a veto |
| 2021-07-06 09:55:10 | <tdammers> | you can veto *changes* to your work |
| 2021-07-06 09:55:13 | <merijn> | Since it's limited by reasonableness |
| 2021-07-06 09:55:24 | <merijn> | "In een aantal gevallen wordt dit recht beperkt door de redelijkheid of het verbod op rechtsmisbruik" |
| 2021-07-06 09:55:54 | <merijn> | A veto cannot be contested. You get the moral right to *object* to changes and a court *may* enforce your objections |
| 2021-07-06 09:55:59 | × | jippiedoe quits (~david@2a02-a44c-e14e-1-5a8-355f-5351-e147.fixed6.kpn.net) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2021-07-06 09:56:04 | <dminuoso> | __monty__: under the US copyright can be sold or transferred. |
| 2021-07-06 09:56:10 | <merijn> | Depending on reasonableness of your objections |
| 2021-07-06 09:56:16 | <dminuoso> | __monty__: So I guess depending on your legal system YMMV |
| 2021-07-06 09:56:16 | → | jippiedoe joins (~david@2a02-a44c-e14e-1-a821-12d7-2af3-286c.fixed6.kpn.net) |
| 2021-07-06 09:56:21 | <tdammers> | yes, but in the case of music covers, the way buma/stemra interprets it is that if it's a "straight-up cover" (i.e., you haven't made any changes to the composition or the lyrics), then moral rights do not apply, but if you have changed the composition or lyrics, then the original author must vet it |
| 2021-07-06 09:56:37 | → | maf654321 joins (~maf654321@user/maf654321) |
| 2021-07-06 09:56:45 | × | boxscape_ quits (~boxscape_@p4ff0ba7a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2021-07-06 09:58:57 | <tdammers> | https://www.bumastemra.nl/faq/bewerkingen/ |
| 2021-07-06 09:59:08 | <dminuoso> | And this ability to sell copyrights is instrumental in ghost writing, for example. |
| 2021-07-06 10:02:40 | <__monty__> | dminuoso: Yeah, looks like the US doesn't even have a concept of moral rights. |
| 2021-07-06 10:02:47 | → | raehik joins (~raehik@cpc95906-rdng25-2-0-cust156.15-3.cable.virginm.net) |
| 2021-07-06 10:03:14 | <__monty__> | Canada does but allows them to be waived and apparently most contracts contain a standard waiver... |
| 2021-07-06 10:03:25 | <__monty__> | This is why it doesn't work unless they're inalienable. |
| 2021-07-06 10:03:31 | × | merijn quits (~merijn@195.114.232.94) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2021-07-06 10:04:13 | × | dunkeln_ quits (~dunkeln@188.71.194.238) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2021-07-06 10:04:45 | × | ubert quits (~Thunderbi@2a02:8109:9880:303c:e6b3:18ff:fe83:8f33) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2021-07-06 10:05:47 | <tdammers> | OTOH, if you make them inalienable, they tend to be cut down to bare essentials (like in the Netherlands), for practical reasons |
| 2021-07-06 10:05:59 | × | Gurkenglas quits (~Gurkengla@dslb-002-203-144-156.002.203.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2021-07-06 10:08:43 | <__monty__> | Bare essentials is still better than being pressured into giving them up altogether. |
| 2021-07-06 10:08:48 | → | eggplantade joins (~Eggplanta@2600:1700:bef1:5e10:cdb:cabc:a7c7:75c9) |
All times are in UTC.