Re:Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibran...
by blackbrokkoli on Tuesday September 04, 2018 @05:51PM
(#17913131)
You realise GDPR is basically the right of keeping things you don't want to be shared to yourself?
And sources are not for the carebears. I mean, too, but they wouldn't be enforced if that would be the only point. It is so that you and I can know where to go to verify or falsify a claim. What would be your alternative proposal?
Ok, let's just give every piece of published source a numeric code or something so we can sort and search and refer too it.
Ok, nobody cares. Let's use the name of the author instead so he has interest that what he says is true and get's used truthfully. Boom, there you have the idea of copyright (in an idealised form)
Re:Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibran...
by ben_w on Wednesday September 05, 2018 @03:16AM
(#17915701)
In the UK, what you’re describing — The right to be identified as the creator of work — would be called a “moral right” rather than a “copyright”.
I literally only know this because my first job contract, my university industrial year, signed that right away for the work I did there.
But nooo, "I want everyone to hear me and I want them to know it was me who said it. Me me me. I'm important, I want to feel like it". Get the fuck over it.
And if you want to make money off of it, there are plenty of much better ways besides braindead ads. GDPR seems to pander a bit too much to carebears.