• 44 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 20th, 2023


  • I’m assuming they meant “talking to the parent, using less complicated, more mainstream words, even if the meaning is a little wrong as a result”.

    Which in my opinion is an ok approach, even though this specific parent, just by posting here, appears tech- and lgbt- savvy enough to probably know at least some terms.

    Also, they could have just said ‘not trans’ instead, if ‘cis’ would be too advanced.

    Actually scratch that, I get using “straight” as non-lgbt. It is how is very commonly used outside of lgbt circles.

    But not a bad thought on its own. just maybe a bit othering.

  • Yeah. It’s a big, painful, complicated, disgusting problem, where law enforcement is a jackhammer, and the crime is a malfunctioning pocketwatch.

    In my opinion, in order to make the situation equally unfair and dangerous for everybody, the law should be unfair and straight up just be biased in favour of the party in most statistical danger and least control (the penetrated party).

    But that’s the “best we can do, given an impossible situation” kind of solution, because the real solution is to deal with society’s problems that cause the situation. Preventative rather than reparative treatment. Giving people what they need to be well, rather than depriving and punishing them as much as possible to keep them obedient.

    And that goes against what our society is built around 🙃

  • I’m getting the sense that you didn’t actually watch the whole video, because your only two points in this comment,

    In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they’d also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.


    It’s really important to know that the vast majority of people aren’t going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it’s even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

    , are answered during the video, and I don’t see you arguing the points made by him, you’re just straight up stating the opposite.

    And your first point,

    Right now, a majority of creatives don’t own their IP in the legal sense, and they can’t stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result.

    , is about how the current system doesn’t work to protect actual artists, yet does work to protect large IP-pimping companies.

  • “Reasonable control” is only possible in the legal sense, not the real sense, so I doubt artists care about it, outside of monetisation, which is what we’re attempting to replace.

    Right now as we are speaking, the art of thousands upon thousands of those creators is being stolen constantly by legally gray AI scraping by huge companies, or illegally by smaller merch leeches.

    The internet makes data protection impossible.

    The law, only prevents the most egregious kinds of ‘monetisation with someone else’s art’, and is unable to stop the rest, for practical reasons.

    If artists didn’t have to worry about being compensated enough… Would they still want to have “reasonable control”? Would we still “risk” them being “demotivated”, from being unable to forbid others specifically from making money with their ideas?

    I think the human drive to create isn’t that neurotic. I think this kind of “demotivation” only happens for the kind of human who has been abused for years by the rules of the absurd economy we live in. And that’s what we’re saying should change.