Did you realize that we live in a reality where SciHub is illegal, and OpenAI is not?

@yabellini I absolutely been preaching this out over and over at my University

@yabellini I don’t know whether it’s appropriate to say but I just keep thinking “they killed Aaron Swartz for allegedly trying to give people access to science they’ve funded and they’ve given 5 billion to Sam Altman for stealing from everyone”

I’m not surprised but for some reason I just can’t stop thinking it. I hate it. I hate it so much. They crushed him even though apparently there was a strong indication that what he was doing wasn’t even illegal.

@yabellini As someone who had never heard of SciHub I really appreciate this post 😂

@yabellini exactly. see also https://social.coop/@Greg/111726874635126789

@beka_valentine @yabellini thank you, I did not know that!

@aud @yabellini but don't take this as a reliable assertion; i'm recalling what i've heard from one degree separation a few years ago

@aud @yabellini (Mostly) Unregulated capitalism is a cancer.

Edit: missed a word lol

@CarRamrod @yabellini @aud the reason for the contrast is that Swartz was enriching the commons, whereas Altman is enriching shareholders. It's called the profit motive. No amount of regulation can change the basic incentive structure of capitalism.

They even acquitted German corporate executives at Nuremberg who were working slaves to death worse than the SS at Auschwitz, because it was their "fiduciary duty to company shareholders" to do so, and therefore it was ruled they had no choice...

@alter_kaker Really?

@failedLyndonLaRouchite @aud @yabellini JSTOR was not hurt because he was caught. They didn't even want to press charges, and also urged MIT to drop their charges.

@flowerpot @failedLyndonLaRouchite @aud @yabellini you have to be very ideological to think that the prosecution was fair and balanced even if you are fully committed to the idea that JSTOR was harmed. Alarmed surely, it looked strange and they wanted to know what was going on, but harm is not proven and they didn't want to press charges. An absolute despicable human being, a prosecutor, decided to abuse the situation to foster his career and an idealistic man was crushed.

@flowerpot @failedLyndonLaRouchite @aud @yabellini and what about the harm of losing a person who did so much in so little time? Certainly things could have been done to prevent that?

So even if you are going to stuck to your position at least be aware of all the implications. And if not, maybe just judge us from your keyboard and move on.

@flowerpot @aud @yabellini

I'm not sure, but if you try and rob a bank, and fail, that is still a crime

at the time, JSTOR was concerned enough to cut off access to ALL of MIT for a day or two

@failedLyndonLaRouchite Yes. Geez. What is wrong with you, why are you defending capitalist shit? @flowerpot @aud @yabellini

@yabellini to be fair, sampling in music is without permission is also illegal, but if you distort the sample enough to be hard to algorithmically detect, you'll probably get away with it.

I guess the counterpoint is that scihub is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, while OpenAI is doing the opposite.

@naught101 @yabellini If you go far enough it's legal - at least in Europe.
"However, where a user, in exercising the freedom of the arts, takes a sound sample from a phonogram in order to use it, in a modified form unrecognisable to the ear, in a new work, it must be held that such use does not constitute ‘reproduction’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29" (Nr. 31 in https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=216552&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1486582)

@naught101 @yabellini

And yet, there is a whole genre of music based on sampling other songs.

@kinyutaka @yabellini that's my point. IMO it's an argument in favour of LLMs. Personally I don't think copyright should exist at all.

But while it does, the fact that you can get away with breaching it if you are rich enough sucks.

@naught101 @yabellini

I think copyright should exist.

For 28 years, like it used to... If you can't profit off your work after a quarter of your life, maybe it's time for other hands to give it a try.

@kinyutaka @yabellini that would definitely be a good first step! Also non-transferability (no selling or inheriting)

@naught101 @yabellini

Though, really, if the limit is 28 years, you can make the argument for inheritance, because the family didn't get the benefit of the full earnings.

The fact that I could draw a new character for a one off story and it is copyrighted for decades after I die is horseshit.

Popeye is older than my dead grandparents and we still have to wait to draw pictures of him.

@naught101 @kinyutaka @yabellini So ideally, scientists publishing in journals would retain copyright on their work, and give the journal a non-exclusive license to publish.
Instead of transferring all copyright to the journal.

@kinyutaka @naught101 @yabellini Screw inheritance. Give all children access to free education, healthcare and sufficient funds for a healthy (not poverty stressed) upbringing. Let's not have them own trusts and shares and real estate based on their parents'/ancestors' exploitation of others.

Also. Let's take away the 'ability' of legal bodies to own anything.

@svgeesus
Plenty of journals do that already (Nature, I think, and the IoP journals) while others leave copyright with authors on open access articles (eg Taylor&Francis). It should be universal though.

@naught101 @kinyutaka @yabellini

@rochelimit @naught101 @kinyutaka @yabellini And some of those journals make authors pay for open publishing.

@svgeesus
Oh yeah, open access charges are usually a massive rip off - the journals cream off a lot more than they deserve.
@naught101 @kinyutaka @yabellini

@zombiecide @kinyutaka @naught101 @yabellini Courts are for humans.

@grumble209 @kinyutaka @naught101 @yabellini Non-native, I probably picked the wrong word. Legal persons, legal entities?

@zombiecide @grumble209 @naught101 @yabellini

So, no inheritance for anything? Not homes, not intellectual property, not favored possessions?

What happens to the things that would otherwise be inherited?

@kinyutaka @zombiecide @grumble209 @naught101 @yabellini

Inheritance should only be for personal possessions. Furniture, mementos, etc.
No one should own property or land, it should all be owned collectively by everyone.
That's not to say that a person's children shouldn't get first dibs on living in their home if they want to, but if they don't then rather than them selling it or renting it and profiting it should just be given to someone else who needs and wants it.

@adaliabooks @kinyutaka @grumble209 @naught101 @yabellini My take on that is "Do you need two chairs? No, your arse only covers one? Then you only get one chair.*"

I'm all for everyone getting some kind of voucher for basic housing on reaching adulthood, which could be put into buying part of your parents' place (the rest you'd have to pay from wages), or in a coop so you can move more easily etc. Land should be in the commons + community administered

*big chairs, wheelchairs are available

@zombiecide @adaliabooks @grumble209 @naught101 @yabellini

As someone who doesn't have a house, I look forward to getting what little cash I get from an inheritance, which would be enough to get a down payment going on my own.

I believe that every adult should have the means to own a home, but home ownership implies being able to keep the home and pass it to children.

Where you have a point is the people with the million dollar mansion and 5 vacation homes.

@kinyutaka "home ownership implies being able to keep the home and pass it to children"

My idea is based on trying to balance needs, fairness, realities of life and environmental impact. In my country, per capita living space has been growing (almost 50m2 for a single person atm) while about 10% live in cramped quarters (more than one person per room, say around 10m2 or less per person), thanks to policy based on self-owned single homes and apartment blocks for rent being supported 1/2

@kinyutaka @zombiecide @grumble209 @naught101 @yabellini

But the point is that the reason you don't have a home is because of the shitty capitalist system, of which inheritance is a part.
If that was fixed you wouldn't need inheritance to be able to own a home (or have a home in an equivalent situation to current ownership)

@adaliabooks @zombiecide @grumble209 @naught101 @yabellini

I guarantee you that if the government gives everyone a home, it's going to be a glorified apartment, with even less maintenance.

@kinyutaka @zombiecide @adaliabooks @grumble209 @yabellini

The problem is property investors.

@kinyutaka Many apartment blocks end up in the hands of shady companies located in some tax haven that don't do the legally required upkeep, while in detached homes, adult children move out, people become elderly, they have to pay to maintain the space, they're reliant on a car-based surburban infrastructure even if too frail for a car, their house can't be retrofitted for a wheelchair but they'd lose the only thing their children can inherit, so they stay as long as possible. 2/2

@zombiecide

Oh, believe you me, I am not a huge fan of apartment living, but that's what will end up happening if we don't allow and encourage individual home ownership.

Here is a proposal, rental inheritance. If a house is being rented out, then the renter inherits the house upon the death of the owner, instead of the children. And a massive penalty to transferring ownership of a rental home to anyone but the renter, including as a gift or a sale.

@zombiecide

Like, if I am living in a home worth $250,000, and the owner passes the home to his kid to prevent it from going to me, it could cost $225,000 in extra taxes. Congrats, you can keep the house, but you'll never profit.

Or they could sell the home to me early, and even if I only give them $100,000 it's more than they'd get from keeping the home and renting it more.

And if they just wait, I get the home free.