this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
321 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59422 readers
2842 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I read the article, and a few points stuck out to me:
I’m all for piracy and personal freedoms, but it doesn’t seem to be what this is about. It’s about combating other companies profiting off Nvidia’s work. Companies should be able to fight back against other companies (or countries).
I mean it’s not like Nvidia is unreasonably suing open-source projects into oblivion or anything, or subpoenaing websites for user data; at least, not yet.
Their motive is likely more profit but the result is an unjust restriction on user software freedom. It doesn't matter if they make less money, maximising profit is not why we grant them copyright. Nvidia is often unreasonable, fuck off Nvidia.
That’s the only reason copyright exists. Because society decided that if you’re the one to put work into developing something, you should be the one reaping the profits, at least for some time.
No, that's a lie. Copyright exists solely for the purpose "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" -- i.e., to enrich the Public Domain in the long run. Enabling creators to profit is nothing more than a means to that end.
Correct answer! And they were originally granted for, what, 7 years with possibly to extend to 14?
Society in general has not granted this, it was corrupt lawmakers. Notice the distinction of maximizing profits, no one says no profits should be had at all. But I'm pretty sure most of the people don't want companies to literally hold back progress of a whole field, of humanity in general just so their profits can be maximized. It's only the ones directly benefitting from this that would want this, or if you're brainwashed by those parties, otherwise you're just against your own best interests (and of the rest of humanity) which is irrational.
Actually quite a few of us do say that
No, it's really not the reason copyright exists. Granting a profit to authors and artists is just a means to an end. The actual purpose is to enrich the public domain. Or "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", as the US Constitution puts it.
You could argue corporate lobbying has molded copyright for profit's sake (e.g. we can thank Disney for copyright lasting an unreasonably long time) but that's not all copyright does. Copyleft is a hack of copyright that lets people use software/media created by another but legally compels you to share it under the same license - meaning a greedy corporation can't just take your work and not share back.
"profiting off their work" this is the equivalent to banning wine.
Anything not from Nvidia is just "sparkling CUDA"
There's a good argument that Nvidia only had the money to do the work because of anticompetitive practices, and so shouldn't be allowed to benefit from it unless everyone's allowed to benefit from it, otherwise it's just cementing their dominant position further.
"not yet" is carrying a mighty load of hope there. Monopolists are going to monopolize.
Thanks for this rational breakdown of what's actually happening. Pretty misleading headline tbh.