Here’s an unpopular opinion: This won’t happen because the policymakers don’t want it to happen. It’s fundamentally opposed to what they want. And I’m not spinning some conspiracy tale here. Listen…
The debate involves many ambiguous terms that people like him interpret one way but which actually mean something entirely different. The correct understanding is ultimately the legal definition. That’s the one that determines if armed people (ie the police) will come and take away your computer.
the AT Protocol allows users to own their data
To a copyright person, this would mean functioning DRM. It means complete control over what happens to their content, regardless of where and how it is stored. They have the law on their side and the policymakers. Mind that the media is part of the copyright industry and they have outsize influence over public opinion. As far as they are concerned, the problem with Big Tech is that they are not paid enough for their rights.
Many people on Lemmy feel the same way about GDPR. Unfortunately, Lemmy’s hive mind is dominated by misconception about GDPR. But it is true that it is far-reaching and would be well served by the same perfect DRM of which copyright people dream.
The ideal European internet is one that has DRM built-in from the bottom so that everyone can exercise their legal rights under copyright law, the GDPR, the data act, and possibly others.
A freewheeling federated network is legally problematic. Even insofar that it is legal, it is fundamentally opposed to what policymakers and much of the public want. Free speech is an American value and emphatically not European.
If you don’t believe me, you can look at tax-funded projects like Gaia-X and then imagine what the social media equivalent looks like.
Here’s an unpopular opinion: This won’t happen because the policymakers don’t want it to happen. It’s fundamentally opposed to what they want. And I’m not spinning some conspiracy tale here. Listen…
The debate involves many ambiguous terms that people like him interpret one way but which actually mean something entirely different. The correct understanding is ultimately the legal definition. That’s the one that determines if armed people (ie the police) will come and take away your computer.
To a copyright person, this would mean functioning DRM. It means complete control over what happens to their content, regardless of where and how it is stored. They have the law on their side and the policymakers. Mind that the media is part of the copyright industry and they have outsize influence over public opinion. As far as they are concerned, the problem with Big Tech is that they are not paid enough for their rights.
Many people on Lemmy feel the same way about GDPR. Unfortunately, Lemmy’s hive mind is dominated by misconception about GDPR. But it is true that it is far-reaching and would be well served by the same perfect DRM of which copyright people dream.
The ideal European internet is one that has DRM built-in from the bottom so that everyone can exercise their legal rights under copyright law, the GDPR, the data act, and possibly others.
A freewheeling federated network is legally problematic. Even insofar that it is legal, it is fundamentally opposed to what policymakers and much of the public want. Free speech is an American value and emphatically not European.
If you don’t believe me, you can look at tax-funded projects like Gaia-X and then imagine what the social media equivalent looks like.