But there is lot of content on Reddit wich is not original. Often just screen-shoted/reposted licensed content. Will this be 'reddit-washing' of original licenses?
They can't migrate control panel to the settings app in a time measured in decades, but I'm supposed to believe that they're going to magically produce something like this that does what it claims? Go home Microsoft. You're drunk.
It sounds like the software didn't work out when you tried it. What issues did you have? Or were you using this chance to dunk on M$ without actually giving it a shot? I think Microsoft has its issues, but this response was boring.
Context lies in how this corporation approaches bars it set itself, and UX the end user have to deal with resulting from it.
When a game studio releases new game, looking at previous games they released is a solid indicator of what quality we can expect. Same goes for software companies making new piece of software. Combined with how LLMs seem super useful until I want them to do something original, I would be very sceptical even in case a corp like Apple came up with this announcement. Seeing it comes from Microsoft, not trusting it isn't result of "hating them is popular", its result of experience.
plot thickens: the people who own the banks fund the dumb people who borrow from the banks to buy guns from the MIC who the very same people who own the banks and the press also own.
Even more. A large portion of Delaware's revenue comes from unclaimed property that is never claimed. The state of incorporation is one of the key deciders on where that money sits until it is claimed.
Let's tie it to the length of copyright law. If it's still protected and under copyright then the obligation to keep it available exists. So if they want to keep extending copyright, well, it will go both ways.
And if they want to stop maintaining it, let them have the option of releasing it into the public domain and sending a digital copy to the library of congress or something.
You can't make a work public domain, just because one distributor is shutting down their digital library. In the first place, they don't even have the rights for this, they just resell other people's work.
Demanding for ensuring another way for accessing the work in the same or similar way is fair enough. You lose nothing, they gain nothing, fairly balanced.
True. Yet I think the idea is sound — if a publisher / rights holder refuses to put a work into print or make it available, they should not be able to keep it away from the public. Copyright is a benefit given to authors & publishers, but is too-often used to suppress works due to content or retire works that can be replaced in the catalog by more profitable offerings.
Yeah it needs to be made transitive. If you've bought a digital copy of the work from one distributor that should obligate the rightsholder to transferring the individual distribution rights (this needs to be nailed to the wall by the legislature so that distribution rights all carry this mandate by law). If they want to switch distributors then the old distributor needs to be obligated to provide a method of transferring those individual distribution rights to the new distributor. If all this is "too burdensome" (editorial note: cry harder about your profits you fucking capitalist goons) then all the parties can just make it public domain.
Yep, and if they want to end distribution altogether or start fresh and still keep copyright, they could distribute DRM free copies for some minimum time frame.
At the very least I would also accept a DRM free copy being provided to everyone who had purchased it (e.g. at least one year or so to download it), and in failure to do that it becomes public domain. Anything less and we basically just end up with the classic xkcd situation https://xkcd.com/488/
That's a clever idea, but I'm not sure it really works because the company who owns the copyright isn't necessarily the company providing the stream to you digitally.
This is about ensuring it stays available from the streaming distributor, and how much time remains on the copyright doesn't really have anything to do with them. And even if the copyright expires next year, I still want to make sure I can keep streaming it for the next 10 or 15 years or whatever, if I buy it today.
If the provider made it available for purchase (not subscription), the liability should go to them first to make DRM free copies available for those who purchased it before shutting down the service. If they are unable to do so, e.g. a sudden bankruptcy, then the liability could go to the copyright holder to find another provider to continue the service and transfer purchases, or provide DRM free copies (either should not be a problem if they are still making money from the given IP). In the event they are no longer making enough money from that IP and wish to just rid their hands of it, it becomes public domain.
> then the liability could go to the copyright holder to find another provider
And they'll choose the crappiest provider they possibly can whose website (no app, presumably) only works in some ancient browser and is "down for maintenance" 50% of the time because that provider has the lowest costs and is thus willing to charge the least for it...
Yep, there would definitely need to be some regulations to prevent that sort of thing as well. I could see this becoming a business where companies are paid to take on this liability of distribution for copyright holders that meets some minimum defined threshold. Ideally it would be as seamless as the prior service if locked, or just reasonable download speeds if DRM free.
If made a law it would make such negligence illegal. You may try to launder the responsibility, but at the end of the day you would be on the hook as the copyright owner. You might have legal contracts that your servicing contractors might break, allowing you to pin the blame back to them, but this would all be making it a business problem rather than a person problem.
This is too easy to loophole out of and it leaves too big of a hole to patch. As a company, all I would need to do is sell the rights, shut down the service, buy it back, rinse and repeat. I don’t think this is a great solution.
Then they can be blocked from selling the rights without the liability of maintaining the service being attached. In order to end the obligation of maintaining the service, DRM free copies must be provided to everyone who purchased the content for some minimum time frame. Failure to do so puts the work in the public domain.
I disagree; in that if they try and sell the rights, they're trying to get out of their obligations to make the content available - that's the point at which it should be blocked; or the new rights holder needs to pick up those obligations to existing customers with the same terms.
I imagine it’s much more complicated than that because they themselves may have never owned the content. A lot of times, they’re leasing content. I think the content owner could choose not to renew a contract thus requiring the distributor to stop distributing. I imagine if the regulator were to go after this, thee’d really need to start at the content owner themselves as well as every middleman.
I chuckled a little bit when I read this. I honestly believe this isn’t something these companies care about at all. It already does damage their reputation yet we see it happen again and again. I do wonder why, does it come down to the monopolization of content? I want to say I’m surprised but I’m not.
JetBrains is just leading the pack in what's coming everywhere. What? You don't want to pay for your 4th monthly subscription to another shitty ChatGPT wrapper? Too bad and welcome to 2024.
