Countless firsthand accounts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have disappeared across the last decade, and it may speak to larger issues with the historical record in the digital age.

      • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        discussing it in the proper context will, I agree. defending an obvious breach of well established copyright law is not going to further the discussion however, it will stall it, and give copyright law advocates an easy target to point at when people attempt to logically discuss alternative options for intellectual property protection methods.

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          How else is this supposed to change when not by challenging the status quo? Or are you suggesting that it is only allowed to do so in a court of law?

          • Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes I am absolutely suggesting that courts of law be utilized to change the status quo… thats how all laws are changed. nobody ever rioted or looted their way into a law changing. its always done in the courts ultimately.

            Rather than breaking a law, you should instead challenge the law until you change it, then you can continue your desired course. especially when that law is in regard to an intellectual property holder’s rights.

            If you were an author, this had been your copyright media that was being distributed without you getting a cut of it, you wouldn’t feel like you were entitled to all of it for free.

            • Richard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              The problem is that this approach requires the goodwill of those in power, and because the power imbalance is very much tilted towards large capitalist mega-corporations and billionaires, no courts will ultimately have an interest in changing laws. This is the reason why civil disobedience is required, as a tool in order to increase the pressure on those in charge to change the law. Do you think that the owning class of the Ancien Regime would ever have made such concessions in 1789 as they were forced to? The French Revolution is the ultimate example for the fact that sometimes, when the power imbalance is too great and the institutions are rigged against the people, riots and armed conflict are the only option to preserve, regain or establish freedom.

            • hark@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The courts of law is how corporations made copyright so ridiculously long and so ridiculously in their favor. They own the system. Do you think we’re on an even playing field here?

    • Quokka@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m so tired of whiny bitches expecting everything for free

      Bullshit you agree.

    • Gork@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      C’mon, break the law, you know you wanna download a car 🚗

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It actually doesn’t have to be legal. There’s scope to laws. If a law is out of this scope (say, regulates ideas, like copyright laws) then it’s nothing.

      Aside of that, playing by your adversary’s rules was never a good idea.