Éibhear 🔭 / is on Nostr

Matrix address: @eibhear:matrix.gibiris.org
Free Software user and supporter
Civil Liberties enthusiast
100% personal account
Also operating The Grand Drawing In (npub1fpj…hn50)

Following me doesn't confer any opinion on you.

Website: [gibiris.org/eo-blog/](https://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/ )
Contact details: [gibiris.org/eo-blog/eibhear-li…](https://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/eibhear-links.html )

Last Notes

2024-09-01 11:52:11

- reply

I think you're not reading what I'm saying. Let's punish twitter for failing to abide by the laws, and let's punish those who decide that twitter would not obey the law. This is 100% clear, and something I agree with.
What I disagree with is the idea that a member of staff of twitter should be personally held liable -- up to the point of imprisonment -- for Musk's decisions, knowing as we all do that Musk listens to no one when he has a bee in his bonnet.

2024-08-31 15:36:55

- reply

Yes. But, if the office is shut down, and the judge says: "open that office again so that I can arrest one of your employees because you won't comply with my orders", who would apply for that job?
Imagine if Musk really really wanted to re-open an office in Brazil, who would he get to agree to be sent to jail? Who would have loved ones who would allow them to be sent to prison for Musk. Would Musk actually care if someone went to jail for him? Would he be any less of an asshole?
The operating assumption where any of this is could work is that the office, the staff and the operations all take place within the jurisdiction. But, none of this is true for twitter and Brazil, so it's a bit odd to support the notion of employing someone to be arrested and jailed for Musk's decisions to operate a company (as shittily as he deems fit) in a completely different country.

2024-07-06 18:17:53

- reply

They were about half-way through it when the phrase "It'll be over by Christmas" was criminalised.

2024-07-01 05:07:51

- reply

My new #copyright will be available only to individual creators. Corporations will have to stick with the current system:
> As this new copyright will be non-transferable, you will not be permitted to assign it to any other person, or to any corporate entity. Corporations will not be able to access this new form of copyright, and will continue to use the current regime.> Creativity is a personal act; this new right will only ever vest with the individual person who created the work, if that's their preference.

2024-06-30 21:34:34

- reply

Normal copyright, yes. My new special copyright would require registration to allow the creator have these additional controls.
(also, while the U.S. automatically grants copyright, I understand it requires the copyright to be registered before filing a law suit claiming infringement)

2024-06-30 21:34:34

- reply

2024-06-30 09:34:48

I've seen a lot of concern on the #Fediverse about how AI companies and (of all organisations!) the Internet Archive are engaged is massive plagiarism and content theft.
The problem here may, in fact, be in how #copyright itself works.
So, I'm proposing a new form of (optional) copyright that creators can apply to their works that will protect them from what they see is theft by these companies and organisations.
[gibiris.org/eo-blog/posts/2024…](https://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/posts/2024/06/29_new-copy-right.html )
You're all free to copy this proposal and bring it to your legislators to see if they will build the legal framework.

2024-05-19 11:45:42

- reply

100%.
I'm getting tired of the accusations being levelled at voters for not wanting to vote for a guy who's actually complicit in a genocide.
It's 2016 all over again. So few properly understand that neither Jill Stein nor those who voted for her lost Hilary Clinton the election. it was Clinton herself who did it.