Like, if someone distributes pornography of themselves, and they are now a nurse or something and are out of the industry + don't want their images distributed anymore, I think distributing pornography of them against their permission just because they aren't distributing it themselves sounds extremely heinous.
The idea that you can somehow control your image is insane. You can't forcibly control your reputation, why should you be able to forcibly control photographers who legally photograph you?
Face it, you don't get to control what other people say about you, nor should you want to. (Whether that "saying" is gossip, in print, or photoshopping your face on to unsavory things.)
And the state of mind is important too. I help at kink events sometimes and I don't accept consent forms from drunk people and don't get them photographed. Unless I know they've agreed to it before.
How many of the millions of published photos of recognizable people on the internet do you think have consent forms. Stock photos yes. But I'd be willing to bet that well short of 1% of the photos of people on Flickr, say, have consent forms.
I wouldn't run the risk without it personally. Especially in the kink community where consent is paramount and forms are already an established method for other activities as well.
I know flickr etc is not so strict on consent but I personally would be. Especially when it involves anything remotely risqué.
The thing is that people change and societal values change over time. It's better to have that consent when someone changes their mind and blames you.
> For you to be able to "dictate" literally anything at all would require control over the computer I'm typing this comment on and every other computer on earth.
Crimes are enforced above ring 0, at the physical layer.
Copyright is about controlling distribution of information that already exists and has already been published. It's complete nonsense in the age of information.
> Crimes are enforced above ring 0, at the physical layer.
Surely you're not suggesting throwing in jail anyone who downloads grandparent's photos off of his website.
> Surely you're not suggesting throwing in jail anyone who downloads grandparent's photos off of his website.
Correct, I am not. I am saying that most places around the world do dictate what he does with a computer already, and legal systems don't need a technical solution to enable it. The fact that nobody can electronically prevent them from copying bits is irrelevant. We are discussing the law, and courts use prisons, not bits.
They absolutely do. Without technological solutions, they don't even have a snowball's chance in hell of even so much as identifying perpetrators of copyright infringement. They can't stop it even with technological measures in place. In order to enforce copyright, they literally need to end computing freedom as we know it today. Computers gotta come pwned straight off the factory so we can only run software that they approve, so that they can reject software that copies their bits.
> We are discussing the law, and courts use prisons, not bits.
Let's discuss the law then. I propose that copyright should stop existing altogether. Simply because laws encode the customs of a people and copyright infringement is absolutely one of those customs. It is normal and natural to infringe copyright.
You infringe copyright when you download a picture or video from a website. You infringe copyright when you screenshot some social media post. You infringe copyright when you share something with your friend via messaging app. You infringe copyright when you make some funny meme by editing text into some popular culture picture. You infringe copyright when you download a copy of some blog post so you can read it later. It goes on and on. Pretty much anything you do infringes copyright. I've seen people arguing that fucking memcpy infringes copyright. It's mind boggling and never stops.
People do all of this stuff without even realizing it. How could it possibly be illegal? The only reason I can think of is constant lobbying by trillion dollar corporations.
I say it does.
Copyright was created in the age of printing presses. In order to violate copyright at significant scales, you had to be an industry player. You needed access to the expensive machines. It simply wasn't possible otherwise. Obviously, copyright makes sense in such a world. It's even enforceable since corporations are big targets.
But we are living in the 21st century. Everyone has globally networked general purpose computers in their pockets capable of copying and transmitting information at speeds and scales unimaginable to anyone in the last century. Everyone infringes copyright on a daily basis without even thinking twice about it. Copying is a fundamental computer operation, computers make it easy and natural to copy virtually anything. There's nothing they can do to stop it without literally destroying this wonderful invention.
Copyright is clearly hanging on for dear life. I say let it die.
Do you feel the same way about companies violating open source licenses?
Your medical records are also just bits in an EMH system as are your text messages to your significant others. Is it okay if I share those?
Of course. There should be no copyright nonsense to begin with. Those licenses shouldn't even exist. Nor should anyone ever be punished for using leaked or decompiled proprietary source code or anything of the sort.
> Your medical records are also just bits in an EMH system as are your text messages to your significant others.
Medical records are collected by healthcare professionals who are ethically and probably legally obligated to keep it secret. This confidentiality exists for obvious reasons, nobody would consult doctors otherwise.
> Is it okay if I share those?
You don't have access to them. You can't share them even if you wanted to. Unlike copyrighted works, those bits shouldn't be and actually aren't distributed to massive audiences worldwide. Everybody understands that once information is out there it's essentially impossible to contain it. That's why they keep it secret.
Only copyright industry is delusional enough to want to sell copies of data to everyone on earth and control what they do with it.
Medical records are covered by separate body of law, so is a conversation with your lawyer, and so are matters of National security. They have no relevance to copyright
It's a difficult topic. Unlike revenge porn which is completely against consent, the actor has signed their distribution rights away. It's really something they should think of very carefully before doing.
And in the cases of porn actors gone mainstream (Sylvester Stallone and Sasha Grey come to mind) it's not really been a big problem for them.