@artemis Yeah, "use the same word for two different adjacent things" is an absolute blight for discourse.

@artemis You can say you don't like intellectual property and people will go "so you support lying about authorship?".

@flesh @artemis we can protect authorship claims pretty fucking easily with timestamps and GPG key signatures.

@cutesobri @artemis The relevant point is that "getting to exploit the idea monetarily with exclusive rights to its reproduction" and "people acknowledging you came up with it" are often treated as synonymous concepts falling under the same term.

@flesh @artemis @cutesobri astral is a startup recently acquired by openai. their entire business model is predicated on work i did very publicly in 2020 for pip. multiple PEPs from their henchman directly erase my work to justify protocols that suck. this goes further than erasure. i then developed several techniques for zip files in rust. they use but do not cite my work there either and managed to introduce a security vulnerability because they can't read the spec.

@flesh @artemis @cutesobri i have never once attempted to sell my code for monetary gain. it is trivial for this company which does sell code for money to act like they invented it while fucking it up. the lack of acknowledgement is central to this. gpg is so far removed from being relevant to anything at all here. not acknowledging credit is a form of wage theft, and copyright is a labor protection. i interviewed for this company before they started using my work without the safety checks.

@flesh @artemis @cutesobri it's cool if you think citing sources is just a nice thing to do but i spent years on this and have been unable to find employment during and since then while this startup has billions of dollars from investors who believed they were funding engineering work. i don't want a fucking litigation path i want people to cite me when they profit off my work and when they fuck it up i want users to know they made a choice to introduce a security vulnerability. there is no way i can ensure that without a defensive patent because copyright is completely insufficient. patents are evil and corporations are evil and speaking in generalities elides the evil

@flesh @artemis @cutesobri corporate exploitation has made me evil. i think it's ridiculous to say the word "exploit" like an exclusive license is the only way exploitation occurs

@hipsterelectron @artemis @cutesobri Yeah, nah, for every worker that somehow manages to use copyright to defend themselves from corporate exploitation, there are countless who have their work become the exclusive property of the company and multiple companies keeping strangleholds over their fields with their IPs.
Treating ideas as property is not actually helpful in the fight against the owning class.

@flesh @artemis @cutesobri yes that's why copyright shouldn't be transferable. "ideas as property" makes two claims first that because the VC class calls it intellectual property that anyone else should use that term two that copyright is about "ideas". patents are evil because they are about ideas and not labor. copyright does not cover "ideas"

@flesh @artemis @cutesobri "for every worker" is a strange comparison to make when your first clause is about workers who own their copyright and the second is about workers who don't. copyright is not the thing that keeps the second group under control, it's the lack thereof, which is why transferring copyright should not be legal as a contract provision.