That definitely changes things. Out of curiosity, I looked up what other movies he directed and produced.
He produced and starred in American Sniper, which was incidentally also kind of a political disaster. The nose prosthetic reminds me of the American Sniper fake baby hilarity. Bradley put the blame on the director, but the director makes it sound like it was a monetary and not an artistic choice. That would put the responsibility on the shoulders of the producer.
So many questions!
Are you suggesting that the political aspects of technology shouldn’t be discussed in a technology community?
Are you implying that technology is apolitical? That there are technology subjects to discuss that don’t have a political component?
Do discussions of the applications of technology not belong in a technology community?
Yikes! They gave Bradley Cooper an even bigger nose than Leonard Bernstein. Is this some kind of antisemitic attack on Jake Gyllenhaal for not taking a pay cut to play the part?
If feel like this is more a studio scandal than a Cooper scandal. They did the casting and approved the prosthetic. I’m disappointed the actor gets the heat and the institution isn’t mentioned.
If you want to get angry at Bradley, his relationship with 21 year old Suki Waterhouse was super gross. The studio holds no blame for that mess.
Crack Attack! is a loving parody of addictive tetrislike games that is also an extremely addictive tetrislike game.
I thought from the title that the song was about how love was gay. Yay invidious!
This is not an appropriate post for this community.
Any rule adds a burden to the mod team. It can be made easier with auto-mod software, but we should make it clear we’re asking for more labor from volunteers.
That being said, I’d love a rule to prevent directly linking to youtube, and using invidious or piped instead. I’ll mod if it helps to enforce the rule.
It’s frustrating that scientists start with the assertion that gun crime and not capitalism is the most pressing public safety concern, but at least they’re trying anti-poverty measures to reduce gun crime instead of more policing. It doesn’t take a PhD to realize poverty is the root cause of not just gun crime, but most social problems.
But this isn’t new. The last time academics tried something similar, the the violence interrupters, the Fraternal Order of Police lobbied against it to have it shut down. It was showing significant results, saving black lives and reducing gun violence. But the police saw it as a threat (and it was - anything that reduces crime is a threat to the institution of police), and they killed it.
I’m disappointed by your condescending tone. I can see we’re talking past each other, and I’m happy to end this conversation here.
Why do you assume because I listed the most prominent example of GOSH’s censorship, that it was the only one? GOSH also litigated against Canadian author J. E. Somma. In both cases, GOSH settled out of court, and in both cases GOSH enforced a lack of transparency over the settlement as part of the terms. The point of these examples is to demonstrate that GOSH went beyond the bounds of mere royalty collector when they saw the chance, not to demonstrate chilling effect.
Chilling effect is not about the books that survived the gauntlet of publication to make it to the litigation stage; it’s about all the ideas that never had a chance to blossom because the threat of copyright enforcement nipped them in the bud. Part of what makes this kind of corporate theft so insidious is that it is impossible to count the works it prevented from existing, or judge the social good they would have done.
Are you saying that ALL royalties for derivative works/use of IP are an abridgement of free speech in your view?
I do believe copyright, its continued extensions in favor of rights-holders, and associated attacks on the fair use doctrine are abridgements of free speech. I also believe each addition of complexity to copyright law is a gift to copyright law firms and the consolidated publishing corporations who can easily afford to employ them, as well as an attack on small publishers and authors to whom employing solicitors and barristers is an onerous burden. But that’s not what I’m arguing here.
I’m saying that granting eternal royalties from Peter Pan to GOSH creates a monetary disincentive for anyone but GOSH to publish derivative Peter Pan works. This creates a chilling effect on the republication of Barrie works and re-use of Peter Pan characters, and is worthy of outrage. This is similar in effect to the intractable libel laws that financially disincentivize publishing negative news about powerful figures and institutions in Britain, which is even more outrageous. I’m also saying that the special copyright status of Peter Pan and larger problems like the libel law situation are evidence of the same underlying issue: Britain’s relative disinterest in protecting free speech.
Thank you continuing this dialogue; I saw your bio, and though we disagree on this particular issue, I think we have a lot in common, and I appreciate your participation here.
Neither GOSH nor the government control who can create derivative works.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. They used their position to selectively control publication of works they didn’t approve. That’s clearly censorship.
But even if they only collected royalties, it would still be a free speech issue. Selectively assigning monetary costs to certain speech is an abridgement of free speech, for the same reason SLAPP lawsuits are a free speech issue.
They don’t work. It’s total bunk.
I’ll go one further - they can never work. AI is trained using a system where an artist system generates art, and a gatekeeper system gives a confidence rating of how it looks human. The artist system goes through a training process until it can consistently fool the gatekeeper system. If there was a system that existed that could identify currently generated AI art, it would become the new gatekeeper system, and the artist system would only get better.
Copyright isn’t registered anymore, it’s granted on creation in almost all jurisdictions that matter. It’s not like there’s documentation beyond the published work.
Maybe a better framing would be “Rich would rather censor children’s story than pay for children’s hospital” - its understandable to not feel outrage over this based on all the worse things that are going on in the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s not deserving of outrage. I don’t think this is a case of perfect being the enemy of good, but rather the shock doctrine aspect of disaster capitalism; it’s difficult to gather sympathy for the principle of free speech when children are literally dying.
It’s important to look at this from a principled perspective; though isolated the Peter Pan, the case enshrines in law that what can be published can be restricted if there’s a sufficiently sympathetic non-sequitur issue. This isn’t even the “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” justification that was used to imprison anarchists for telling the truth about WWI, where the justification is related to the effect of the speech. Peter Pan stories have no natural connection to children’s health, but allowing sentimental framing to trump principled proceedure perpetuates a lack of care in British society for the principle of free speech. It’s a slippery slope that has been borne out in the ways censorship of journalism harm modern British society much more than ~1.5M yearly funding for a children’s hospital can justify.
It’s more than “Children deserve hospitals and stories too” - British children deserve hospitals and better government, stronger journalism, and protection from BBC and religious pedophiles too.
Good summary!
This makes it very different indeed.
Is it though? I’d frame it as “government robs children of new Peter Pan stories in order to pay for childrens’ hospital” – it’s like those ‘feel-good’ stories in the news about children laboring at lemonade stands to raise funds for their mother’s cancer treatment. It’s easy to forget that these are scenarios with only bleak options because of the unstated premise that the rich will never pay their share.
I love this song.
Most people experienced the song through CD or radio play of the Unplugged in New York album version, which cut right to the start of the song.
But in a topical twist, Kurt Cobain didn’t realize Leadbelly was doing a cover as well, LOL.
The guy you’re trying to pass the buck to, money_loo, is from a lemmy instance that only has Chicago sports communities and whose front page is mostly federated meme posts. You’re a BeeHaw user. You’ve presumably read and agreed to the Beehaw community documents.
I expect more than anti-intellectualism from you.