hahaha no failfandomanon is extremely at Dreamwidth, but I think the wankiest people mostly moved to other places in recent years.
oh lord I cannot imagine how they would torment nexus the tao te ching.
...wait yes I can. they'd decide that LLMs are the tao. "What's perfectly whole seems flawed, but you can use it forever." "To know without knowing is best." "If those in power could hold to the Way, the ten thousand things would look after themselves."
Do you think it was NZ? I kept trying to figure out what it was but because India was missing I was really unclear. I also guessed “extremely large New Guinea.”
I mean ...
No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.
-- allegedly, President George H. W. Bush (though he denied he said it)
I’ve had interviewers send me google docs locked to a google account, sent to my personal email which they probably assume is a redirect to Gmail in the background. And then when I write back and say, hi, thanks, could you share this a way that I don’t need a google account, they get extremely skeptical. These days I have a stub Google account I keep around specifically for places that are going to force me to use Google, but even then I have to write back and say “could you provide access to this email address and not that one“, and again, the interviewers get weird and sometimes don’t write back.
Yah, this makes sense. Community conventions can encourage good accessible content creation, and software can have affordances to do the same. Twitter, for many years, has been the opposite. Not only did it not allow alt, but the shorthand and memes and joke templates that grew up on short form Twitter was an extremely visual language. Emoji-based ascii art, gifs, animated gifs, gifs framed in emoji captioned by zalgo glitch unicode characters… there’s HTML that can make all that accessible, in theory, but the problem is more structural than that.
Also, I was perfectly able to figure out you meant Austria just by searching Child Corporate Punishment Laws on wikipedia for the string "1977".
Oh man. All the real boys / in their black jeans / called me crazy.
You saw another reference to girlyman? There was a period a decade ago when I played their music constantly and went to every show I could.)
I got no Spotify, and I buy a lot off bandcamp.
- Nate Borofsky, formerly of Girlyman, made a soundtrack for a community theater production of Romeo & Juliet
- Mint Green
- Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
- Kimya Dawson
- John Prine
- Rhiannon Giddens
- Maria Ka, a Polish, non Jewish singer who performs mostly in Yiddish.
- “Fuck the Tories”. Happy fourth of July.
- “FTP in der gasn”, a Yiddish and English arrangement of a nineteenth century song that got there before N.W.A.
- Amber Rubarth and Paper Raincoat (YT link)
gnomicutterance
joined 2 years ago
It is not, in fact, bad that copyright applies to a wider group than publishers, unless you are using "publisher" extremely broadly to apply to "creators".
If "someone gets attacked for posting an image on social media", that rarely means "lawyers came after me because I posted a screenshot of a page from Sandman". It often means that the poster took someone else's art, snipped off the artist's signature, and posted without attribution, and the artist is rightfully angry. Copyright is what enables that artist to continue to eat and make more art. The same goes for music, or software, or movies.
Sure, the system is horribly abused by uneven power structures, as every system in the world is. For music especially, we all know that the takedowns are usually issued by people who have nothing to do with the creation of the protected work, because of the way licensing and rights grants work in that industry. Automated takedown systems (which have to exist because of the scale of online content) also have no reasonable appeal mechanism, and the people making the decisions don't (and can't) make reasonable assessments about fair use and transformative works.
I'm not saying that everyone who participates in piracy is a bad, wicked thief--I absolutely participate in it myself. But copyright is not the villain here; that's just trying to make us feel justified about our actions. Someone made a creative work I enjoyed, and I don't have a moral right to the product of their effort for free.