> I can get a lot of that kind of content through other channels- there are plenty of podcasts out there.
The law doesn't ban the discussion of any particular topics, it bans social media platforms that are subject to the laws and control of adversarial governments. Specifically, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who are already prohibited from participating in sensitive parts of the US economy.
If social media exists to collect vast amounts of information about its users--and it does--then it's reasonable for the government to be concerned about whether that information can fall into the hands of an adversary.
If social media exists to manipulate its users into believing and doing things that benefit the platform--and it does--then likewise the government has good reason to be concerned about how an adversary might use that.
Framing the law as a ban on particular viewpoints is misguided at best, misinformation at worst. And, as you and the GP comment both point out, it wouldn't work since other platforms and venues are still wide open.
The can of worms being left open is a feature not a bug. It's one reason why the law can survive a strict scrutiny review.
That's a fair analysis, but I'd argue that you are being too charitable to the US government. I think they simultaneously have legitimate security concerns, but also wish to regain control over some of their narratives w/ respect to foreign policy. But really that's just a matter of opinion.
The issue I have with this is that it treats the US government as one entity that has a singular view. I don't think the US government works like that, instead it has contradictory views within itself and especially over time as the party in power changes. For example, the two political parties that passed this bill have wildly differing views on foreign policy. Thus how can you say its to regain control over narratives, if thy don't even agree on which narrative to promote?
Copyright exists, immediately upon creation (not publication) of a work.
It's different from trademark, in that practical applications, enforcement, registration, etc., does not invalidate the copyright.
Copyright can expire, which then becomes, effectively, "public domain."
Registering a copyright doesn't create the copyright. It simply makes it easier to go after those that disrespect it.
I'm pretty sure that the only way to truly transfer the ownership of copyright of a work, is to have agreements in place, before it is created (like "work for hire" contracts).
As a creator you can also explicitly dedicate a piece of work to the public domain, thus relinquishing any copy right to it. That’s what licenses like CC0, WTFPL, and The Unlicense do.
However, even being in the public domain does not in itself mean you can do everything. For example, in France you still have to respect the “moral rights” of the author, meaning you have to include their name and original title.
The "moral rights" in France and Germany, or the "Urheberrecht" in Germany and Austria and others in Europe prohibit even the creator to put things in the "public domain" to the full extend. There are pro and con debates about this, of course.
In the "monkey selfie" case, the monkey lost, and lost hard. Probably because PETA behaved like ... PETA ... They footgun themselves constantly, by acting way too extreme.
I am not sure what you are getting at, all property rights are made up agreements, as is what is defined as property, what can be privatized and what rights that affords you.
Take tangible land, your exclusive use of it has boundaries, for example airspace rights or mineral rights. It is all made up.
The difference is tangible v intangible, but in either case the rights are made up.
What is it with this new ontological wave on the Interwebs? For a mathematical axiom, do you need another axiom that tells us that the first one exists? And so forth?
How would you prove the existence of the universe? Do we not need a bigger universe that contains ours? And so forth? (Don't mention the big bang, which is a bunch of non-falsifiable formulas.)
Who has gotten jail or prison time for copyright violations in recent times?
I’m aware of recent cases in Canada where defendants chose to ignore a court ruling and attempt to republish very similar material as what the court had originally found them to be in copyright violation for. They were then found to be in contempt of the court which is a criminal offence and then ordered to complete jail time and pay substantial fines.
Copyright violations are not criminal offences in countries I’m aware of. Please tell me of any cases where a copyright violator faced jail time for the copyright violation and not for related criminal offences.
> Swedish prosecutors filed charges on 31 January 2008 against Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Peter Sunde, who ran the site; and Carl Lundström, a Swedish businessman who through his businesses sold services to the site. The prosecutor claimed the four worked together to administer, host, and develop the site and thereby facilitated other people's breach of copyright law.
>Ontologically, copyright doesn't exist. Copyright is an epistemology.
You keep using these words, ontology and epistemology. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
>If copyright could exist, then a copyright for the copyright must be able to exist, and it'd be turtles all the way down
This doesn't make any sense.
First, not all things that exist are covered by copyright or have a copyright about them existing (air exists, but doesn't have a copyright. Neither do slugs, pebbles, Uranus, and other existing things).
Copyright is just sets of laws dictating ability to copy, distribute, and so on. It doesn't need a copyright for itself, and even if it did, the regular terms for reproducing any other legal code would suffice.
>Copyright, as intellectual property, is entirely made up as all other intellectual property is.
All human laws and conventions are made up. Doesn't mean anything - copyright is still enforceable with very real prison buildings, cells, and bars - and if resisting arrest for it, very tangible police battons, tasers, and bullets are not out of question either.
The law in the OP specifically includes websites, DNS, hosting, etc.
And this isn't some greyweb torrent site with a thousand heads. Without access to US advertisers there's no reason why Tiktok should even want to have US users.
reply