The Copyright Mentality
![[avatar]](/pictures/favicon.png)
Blender Dumbass👁 60
https://blenderdumbass.org/ : 👁 6
https://mastodon.social/ : 👁 3
https://mastodon.online/ : 👁 1
https://phanpy.social/ : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/articles : 👁 1
A large majority of people confuse privacy with data protection. And lately I'm noticing an uproar of ideologies that claim to be pro-freedom in one way or another, but which threaten freedom as a whole. I think there is a certain copyright mentality to them. Certain misunderstanding of ownership which makes fighting for freedom more complex.
I have an issue with Copyright because as a Free Software user, I know that this is the main problem we face in the digital world that we live in today. If we want to have freedom in the 21st century, we should be able to control our devices. Our devices that we have to use to function in this age. Our devices that are filled to the brim with software and other data under copyright. Copyright that restricts what we can do with those devices. And by extension restricts us. And our freedom. Therefor I cringe every time I sense a copyright mentality being expressed together with something that I might agree with otherwise. In a digital age we need digital freedom and digital freedom is incompatible with copyright.
Privacy is only one part of a much larger freedom puzzle. There are other aspects of Freedom, such as the infamous Freedom of Speech that are a part of the same puzzle. The problem with those two is that Freedom of Speech seems at a glance completely incompatible with Privacy. And that copyright mentality I observe partially stems from that.
Speech is not only words. Ideas and feelings can be communicated in a multitude of ways. Art can be done in many different forms. Yes there are articles, books and speeches. Which are words. But then there are also paintings, sculptures, music and film, and so many other forms of art. All of them at least try to communicate something. An idea, a feeling. Something. Even something as vulgar as porn communicates ideas and feelings. The feeling of arousal, for example. All of this is still Speech.
Breaking copyright to share something with other people in the digital age, sharing a piece of text or an image, not just sharing a link to it, but actually copying it, incorporating it in your work, doing things to it, all of this is Speech. Speech that has to be protected.
Privacy on the other hand is a restriction of what information can be talked about. What ideas could be shared. At least from the perspective of the copyright mentality. A lot of us who argue for privacy argue for data protection. For the private data that is already collected to remain untold to those we don't want to tell it to. But in this way we actually restrict freedom of somebody else. Freedom of Speech of somebody else.
Say Alice said something private to Bob. But Bob wants to reveal this secret to George. It is Bob's freedom of speech to do so. Yet it will fly in the face of data protection. Because how dare Bob tell George something private about Alice without Alice's consent.
The only way to fix this conundrum. The only way to allow for both Privacy and Freedom of Speech. The only way to allow for Freedom. Is to make Alice not tell anything to Bob, which she doesn't want George to know. Data Protection therefor isn't enough. What we need is privacy. Direct privacy. End to end and under our control.
For example. A lot of people's healthcare data is held on servers of healthcare providers. They can view that data, examine it and maybe even share it around. Data Protection is when those people cannot view or share that data. It's when those people cannot "talk" about it. Good privacy would be when that data isn't there in the first place. But is instead on some privately held disk, or something. Maybe a USB stick, that you carry with you to your doctor. This way the healthcare provider cannot undermine your privacy even if they wanted to. And in the same time they are not stripped of their Freedom of Speech.
Technologies like End-To-End encryption are a key for this. And that is exactly why laws that try to outlaw it for one reason or another are such a problem. We don't want copyright mentality data protection. We want privacy!
Another thing that disturbs me about the whole copyright mentality of data protection, is the push for making fake porn illegal. From a glance it seems like something I might support. Most fake porn these days is made using AI. Something that worries me as an artist. Something that forced me to record how I write this article, to prove to you that I put actual real effort into it. Yet it seem like effort is not something people care about when it comes to AI.
I made a mastodon poll about AI and the thing I think is the worst about it, that it de-legitimizes effort put into art, is the least voted option. Most people either don't see anything wrong with AI, or have a problem with it being kind of stupid. The only political stance people actively take against it is full of the same copyright mentality. Fake Porn issue is filled with the same mentality. How dare somebody take a picture of me and edit a penis into it?
It is hard for me to imagine being upset with somebody for that somebody expressing lustful feeling toward me, or with somebody who is making funny pipi jokes into my direction. Maybe it is because I'm a man and I will never get pregnant. Sex doesn't scare me off. Perhaps the best analogy for a man, to understand how women might feel about it, would be somebody's murder fantasies. Imagine you find an image of yourself dead, or in the middle of being murdered.
Even a nod to it could be disturbing. I'm Jewish and hearing somebody say that they are a Nazi could be disturbing. There was one time I received what appeared to be death threats from a pro-Palestine activist in bug reports for one of the software project I was developing. Threats that were nothing to do with the project, and more to do with a country I happened to be stranded in. That feels awful! It can make your stomach turn.
Yet, that person never actually attempted to actually harm me. Whoever makes stupid porn collages or uses AI to generate naked images of people they find attractive, doesn't actually violate that person's body. There is no physical contact in any way shape or form.
Making fake porn of somebody is expressing an idea. Either an idea that you don't respect that person. Or a much more primitive idea, that you simply find that person attractive and would like to do some kinky stuff with that person. Trying to stop it because of some idea of the person "violating" you, or your likeness, in this case is clear copyright mentality. It is you asserting that you own every image taken of you. Which is the same kind of issue I found in the first half of this article.
If I don't want you to know something about me I will only reveal that to the people that I can trust. Knowing full well that I risk it even with those people. If I really don't want you to know something, I will never tell it to anyone. And fighting for privacy is fighting for my right to keep my secrets. And my rights to tell something without a need for any stupid data protection.
And for those of you who live in places where fake porn is already illegal. Well...
I grant you a right, to use any published photograph ( or video ) of myself, to do fake porn of myself, or any other fake video of myself. As long as it is disclosed that it is fake ( or it is absolutely obvious that it is fake ).
Happy Hacking!!!
I think it should also be noted that the discourse around AI has effectively laid bare the perfect excuse for eternal copyright. I have seen friends, good friends, falling into old lies reminiscent of those shared in the ill fated war on piracy of the 2000s. I even met a musician friend who was adamant that something as mundane as sampling was objectively evil. A hypertraditionalism has emerged in otherwise progressive art circles around the intent and meaning of art. We need to be calling attention to this, else face an artistic backsliding the liked of which we have no modern parallel for.
... replies ( 1 )
Blender Dumbass
c:1@isa it almost seems like the overlords of copyright wanted to defeat freedom-seekers in this chess move of theirs. AI companies usually deal in proprietary software.
Blender Dumbass
c:1... c:0
I think it should also be noted that the discourse around AI has effectively laid bare the perfect excuse for eternal copyright. I have seen friends, good friends, falling into old lies reminiscent of those shared in the ill fated war on piracy of the 2000s. I even met a musician friend who was adamant that something as mundane as sampling was objectively evil. A hypertraditionalism has emerged in otherwise progressive art circles around the intent and meaning of art. We need to be calling attention to this, else face an artistic backsliding the liked of which we have no modern parallel for.
@isa it almost seems like the overlords of copyright wanted to defeat freedom-seekers in this chess move of theirs. AI companies usually deal in proprietary software.
... c:1
Blender Dumbass c:1c:0
@isa it almost seems like the overlords of copyright wanted to defeat freedom-seekers in this chess move of theirs. AI companies usually deal in proprietary software.
@blenderdumbass
All according to keikaku...
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Super_8_Poster.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](/pictures/thumbs/danisrace_2025-03-17.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Bad_Boys_II_Official_Theatrical_Poster.png/220px-Bad_Boys_II_Official_Theatrical_Poster.png)