Works should not have to be licensed for analysis, and Cory Doctorow very eloquently explains why in this article. I'll quote a small part, but I implore you to read the whole thing.
This open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, further expands on the pitfalls of this kind of thinking and the implications for broader society. I know it's a lot, but these are wonderfully condensed explanations of the deeper issues at hand.
If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post. The last one isn't about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.
I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.
It should have been impossible to miss the first article linking to this companion blog post, and I meant to link this article instead of the second one.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow. You're misrepresenting how these systems actually work. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Honestly who cares about being an artist? There's always going to be snobs trying to tear you down or devalue your efforts. No one questions whether video games are art or not now, but that took like twenty years since people began seriously pushing the subject. The same thing happened with synthesizers and samplers in the 1980s and as a result there are fewer working drummers today, but without these we would not have hip hop or house, and that would have been a huge cultural loss.
Generative art hasn't found its Marley Marl or Frankie Knuckles yet, but they're out there, and they're going to do stuff that will blow our minds. They didn't need to be artists to change the world.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow. Your comment is off base enough to veer into the territory of misinformation.
I think you laid it out pretty well. There was no motivation given, the people were just bad because they were bad. It didn't sit well with me, and a short while later I found all this and the pieces fell into place. It's pretty ugly stuff and the kind of thing you issue a retraction for, and to my knowledge there is none.
Edit: Bro had to be aware of the problems and let it go to print, then on air with no alterations.
Using copyrighted works without permission isn't illegal and shouldn't be. You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries.
I have a feeling this experiment would sooner get the axe than have ads injected. There was initially a waiting list, but just a few days in it was completely open to the public.
Their policy could never stop anyone in the first place.