you defend a Big Tech company

Why lie about me? Oh well, when Ayn Rand’s ideology is being passed off as socialism then I might as well be.

you have a clear answer to who “they” are?

Could I be talking about those corporations demanding money? Those rich, famous and well-connected people demanded their capitalist rents? Who knows? Big mystery.

Yeah, that’s one of the slogans they use to manipulate you. It’s like the one going around before elections. Both parties are the same and so an outsider is needed, like Trump. How’s that working out for the US right now?

So long as we’re not just singling out Meta. They’ve all done it.

They have to single out Meta for the narrative to work. Objectively, this is about major content owners, corporations, wanting a piece of something other people have created. That’s a tough sell, so you have to spin a story.

Not seeding is hilariously on-brand for Meta though. Maybe it’s the ‘possession < distribution’ defence?

Sorta. AI training is clear-cut fair use, which is why you get manipulative stories like this one. What exactly do these out-of-context quotes say about the law? Nothing, but it serves the narrative.

Actually seeding the content is problematic. If you knew that the downloaders had some legal purpose, that might work. But just sharing it is hard to justify.

When you’re shilling for copyright, at least pick a lane. Are they bad for “pirating” or bad for not supporting “piracy”?

I guess it doesn’t matter as long as the owners collect their rent.

I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft.

That’s an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?

When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.

When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.

Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn’t require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?

I’m trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it’s stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that soviet states would have negotiated with owners of private property before using it for public benefit?

Still sounds like Ayn Rand and not socialism.

I assume you probably want to know how this kind of leftism is different from others or other ideologies calling themself leftist, rather than for me to write an essay on myself.

What confuses me is that you argue that property owners should be able to demand payment for the use of their property without any further consideration. That is a very conservative capitalist stance. It’s not compatible with any flavor of socialism that I am aware of. In fact, most pro-capitalists would reject it as too far right. The only ideologue, I can think of, that holds this stance even for copyrights is Ayn Rand. Your ideas seem compatible with hers. I don’t understand why you would think of that as socialist or even left.

When you call yourself a socialist, what do you mean by that term?

No. Seriously, why do you want to call yourself a socialist?

Calling property labor, doesn’t make you a socialist.

EG 2 weeks ago, there was a post that had people calling for making robots.txt legally binding. Very disappointing.

No, just disappointed.

Wow. A copyright lawsuit where Lemmy isn’t rooting for the establishment. Won’t anyone think of the poor, starving artists?!