Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.
What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don’t like. So they don’t mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.
And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.
Believe it or not, but there are externalities to the polemics you are describing.
The ostentatious posturing (I am a tiny minority that is virtuous, everyone else just wants to punish people and doesn’t want the law to apply to everyone equally) is pretty ignorant. I’ve lived in multiple countries across North America, Europe and Asia, it’s clear that you haven’t thought about this.
It’s comically easy to find well known (locally) examples where even the non polemical version of your arguement doesn’t hold.
EDIT: I would appreciate a counter argument from people who don’t agree. I am genuinely curious, because to me this seems like common sense. And I can provide multiple example from different cultures about why this rhetoric does not sound convincing.
I don’t think the reference to “ostentatious posturing” is uncharitable. Just look at the text. This copytext is pretty standard and clearly aimed at self-aggrandization.
The qoute says the “authors”, so this law is not exclusively tied to actors, but generally works of art and the people involved in creating it. Thats why I called out things like remakes.
And while you are right that in many of my examples there would probably be contracts to avoid these issues, my point was to show how easy it is to break this law (and that copyright owners do it all the time themselves).
Also, fair use for parodies is not a thing in all countries - not sure if it is in Denmark.
Fair Use exists only in the US. I believe it is part of the reason why the US became so culturally dominant. It certainly is why the internet is US dominated. European copyright laws are stifling.
Yeah, it also seems weird cause things like remakes, parodies, trailers, etc. all would technically violate that law.
Someone once explained it to me.
Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.
What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don’t like. So they don’t mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.
And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.
Believe it or not, but there are externalities to the polemics you are describing.
The ostentatious posturing (I am a tiny minority that is virtuous, everyone else just wants to punish people and doesn’t want the law to apply to everyone equally) is pretty ignorant. I’ve lived in multiple countries across North America, Europe and Asia, it’s clear that you haven’t thought about this.
It’s comically easy to find well known (locally) examples where even the non polemical version of your arguement doesn’t hold.
EDIT: I would appreciate a counter argument from people who don’t agree. I am genuinely curious, because to me this seems like common sense. And I can provide multiple example from different cultures about why this rhetoric does not sound convincing.
I don’t think the reference to “ostentatious posturing” is uncharitable. Just look at the text. This copytext is pretty standard and clearly aimed at self-aggrandization.
Except a remake would not use the original actor’s image, a trailer is part of marketing the actor agreed to, and parodies are covered by fair use.
The qoute says the “authors”, so this law is not exclusively tied to actors, but generally works of art and the people involved in creating it. Thats why I called out things like remakes.
And while you are right that in many of my examples there would probably be contracts to avoid these issues, my point was to show how easy it is to break this law (and that copyright owners do it all the time themselves).
Also, fair use for parodies is not a thing in all countries - not sure if it is in Denmark.
Fair Use exists only in the US. I believe it is part of the reason why the US became so culturally dominant. It certainly is why the internet is US dominated. European copyright laws are stifling.
Do you even know if that’s true for Denmark? It is in the US, but I doubt it is, globally.