If mailboxes of some people were breached, those reset emails can be used to steal their Instagram accounts. So it can be some other breach being exploited, rather than a vulnerability in Instagram account itself.
The thing is, Europe is kinda special. Cascade effects of America forcefully taking over Greenland will be by orders of magnitude more painful to Americans than Brexit was to Britain. America flipping from an ally to an adversary will trigger huge economic decoupling and it is practically certain that dollar will immediately loose its weight and USA may even default on its debt after that. Yes, Europe is going to suffer too, but I have a gut feeling that European citizens will still do better.
Citizens are subjects, they have active voice. You may mean something deeper, but others will happily support only the “active voice” part. Corporations must not have it.
But in certain sense you are right. Corporate management should behave as citizens, and their citizen duties must be superior to their duties to shareholders.
> Beyond following the law, what are citizen duties?
Simple example: let’s say there’s an environmental law preventing corporation to make more profits. The good citizen should not try lobbying to repeal this law, even if this would be perfectly legal and lead to better outcome for shareholders. If CEO acts as good citizen and refuses to follow advice of the board and take this route, this should be legally defensible position.
OK but that would conflict with the charters of most companies. The charter instructs directors/officers to make profit for shareholders. It would be a significant undertaking to compel every company to somehow become a public benefit corporation.
An investment broker comes to an old German still keeping money in a bank.
- Look, Americans announced plans to get Greenland and extract all the resources! It's time to invest in the stock market!
- But what if Denmark disagrees?
- Don't worry! America will just take it anyway!
- And if Denmark resists?
- Then America will invade!
- But what if NATO collapses when America attacks a member state?
- Well... then America won't survive alone in a hostile world.
- And if America collapses?
- Mein Herr... then surely it's worth losing a few thousand euros just to watch that spectacle, no?
According to West, not allowed. However, the West does not exist anymore, and we have two different ideological camps within it. According to USA, it’s bad, but it did not hurt American interests, so a good deal is possible. According to EU, foreign policy of which is hijacked by Baltic right, it is still not allowed, but… Deep currents indicate that as soon as it’s done with formal condemnations, it is desirable that business will resume as usual.
There’s massive propaganda effort painting the picture of imminent invasion, so opinion polls are naturally reflecting that. I doubt that there was ever a reason for Finland to worry about it. It’s just a convenient narrative for politicians, mainly on the right. But I was not saying that it’s only right leaning voters think this way. Just pointed out that we have Kallas as head of EU diplomacy and few other vocal politicians from Baltic right wing parties, and they are fixated on Russian threat, which is necessary for their political survival.
Plenty of European businesses still operate in Russia or have set up their exit for easy return via Dubai legal entities. Also Belgium fiercely resisting confiscation of Russian assets etc.
>Also Belgium fiercely resisting confiscation of Russian assets etc
Isn't this literally them not wanting to be left holding the paper bag?
What businesses are doing, I don't know, I am more aware of what states are doing. What're your thoughts on the expansion of military expenditure? Let Ukraine die, keep ourselves defended?
> Isn't this literally them not wanting to be left holding the paper bag?
It’s telling that they consider this a possibility. If EU wanted it, they could protect Belgium. But anticipation of business as usual means that whoever distances from such decisions better, will do better.
„Let Ukraine die“ decision was made in 2022, when NATO chose not to engage directly and not to switch to war economy, rapidly scaling production of military equipment and supplies. In NATO vs Russia war, Russia had no chances, but it quickly became Ukraine vs Russia war with token Western support, where Ukraine has no chances in the long term. As for increase in military spending, it’s necessary, but whatever is done, is insufficient. It is barely enough for containment of Russia, and EU needs independent operation in Middle East and Africa, pushing out USA from the region (whatever America does there, always ricocheting on Europe, so they should be denied action without approval of allies)
That would make any movies based on stories in public domain impossible, because it would destroy all financial incentives to make them. No, derivative works should be on their own terms.
1. People still do software based on the GNU license. What's the difference?
2. I'm a mathematician - math is not copyrighted, yet it's still being done.
3. Is it really so important for society that copyrighted movies be based on old stories? Won't society benefit from new stories and characters?
To be clear, I don't propose to really implement it. But the existing system also sucks. I'm thinking that maybe incorporating such an idea into the existing system - limiting what you can do with public domain work - can be beneficial.
>People still do software based on the GNU license. What's the difference?
The right question to ask is what do they have in common, and the answer is nothing but an artificial legal construct of IP. To write public domain software you need a computer and 2 sqm of space (or even less) that you occupy while working. Material resources needed to shoot one movie are one big reason you need financial model.
2. math is irrelevant here, has nothing in common with movies or music
You're comparing apples and really big complicated apples. Books are protected by copyright and they only need a computer and 2 sqm of space, right? People make copyright protected videos with 2 sqm of space and a phone that get as many views as many large budget movies.
I think the differences between inventing a story or song and inventing a theory are not as great as you pretend.
The big difference really is status quo and tradition.
>I think the differences between inventing a story or song and inventing a theory are not as great as you pretend.
I do not pretend anything and I‘m not talking about inventing a story. I‘m talking about movie production, which, even with heavy use of AI is by orders of magnitude more expensive than a piece of free software, and certainly cannot be done with a single computer.
Why are you choosing to compare inventing math to producing a movie? How does that help you advance your argument that it is reasonable for one to be under copyright and not the other?
Movies absolutely can be created with one computer. There was a movie shot entirely on an iphone. They can be edited on an iphone too. Heck, movies can be created without a single computer. That was the only way to make movies for many decades.
If something is important culturally and historically, financial incentives aren't really important (assuming you're not making a joke about Hollywood being creatively bankrupt).
Whenever it concerns expensive production, and historical pieces are inevitably not „Blair witch“ cheap, financial model is very important. Given that this suggestion implies that copyright still exists, the film makers will have to choose either to raise money from state or donations to make something from public domain works or to explore material that is still copyrighted and count on box office and streaming revenues. The boundary between those choices is set to a random expiration number, the incentives are obviously skewed towards better pay, so chances are high that whatever enters public domain will be quickly forgotten by the public.
It is an interesting thought experiment, but would pretty much make standalone copy able creative work like photography, books, music, or movies impossible to sell. Works could be created on commission, but there would be a strong disincentive for producing any work without commission.
1. People who make money from GPL software typically make their money from support contracts or from running a service. Unlike software, photography, books, music and movies don’t require any ongoing maintenance once created to keep them running or up to date. There is some value in the distribution of physical copies, but digital distribution would have almost no value.
2. Math is pretty much in this boat already. Most math work is either directly paid for by a company that consumes it, or is academic work with incredibly high barriers to entry and constant hustling for grant funding. I wouldn’t wish that on any field, would you?
3. Take for example Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. While the characters are new, they draw upon a rich mythology from the public domain (eg dragons, goblins, wizards, witches, etc).
It is an interesting discussion, but I expect removing the freedom to use public domain works outside of the public domain would was to very bad outcomes.
> 1. People still do software based on the GNU license. What's the difference?
The GPL family of licences are significantly different from Public Domain. There is still the option of relicensing for commercial use, for example, which is moot under a public domain status. Though some¹ treat the GPL as PD anyway…
MIT might be a more valid comparator, so to answer the question from that PoV: Money. Many OSS contributors do it to scratch their own itch, or for some definition of “community”, the cost of contribution is generally low (or feels like free) and they don't need anything back. Some are supported by donations or sponsorship but not the majority. Those in commercial environments are supporting projects (by contributions or sponsorship) that are useful to that commercial interest, so there is a benefit there but no need for direct payment (they may get payment for support and/or consulting services or via subscriptions for a paid-for hosted instance of whatever). Someone making a film of a book, or a licensed sequel/prequel/other, unless they are doing it for love or just shits & giggles like some fan-made efforts, generally needs/wants to make profit from it, especially in the case of film/TV which can have a large up-front cost - that is unlikely to happen if the new derived work is automatically public domain.
> 2. […] math is not copyrighted, yet it's still being done.
Not for Hollywood level money, it usually isn't :)
> 3. […] Won't society benefit from new stories and characters?
Yes, it certainly would IMO. But it turns out there is less easy money in that. People flock en-mass to works based on familiar IP more than they do to original works, for better or (often) worse. To paraphrase MiB: A person is classy and appreciates original good art, people are a bunch of dumb consumers of fast food for the mind.
Original works do sometimes smash through that barrier of course, they then often become the new IP that a bunch of derived works are based on so in several years time they are part of the cycle makers of new original works are competing with.
> 3. Is it really so important for society that copyrighted movies be based on old stories? […]
No. But it is important for the entertainment industry, for the reason noted above. What is good for society isn't necessarily the same as what people are willing to pay for, and what is good for the producers of works (away from those doing it purely for their own satisfaction or sense of artistic vision) is what people are willing to pay to experience.
--------
[1] Onyx, makers of the Boox line of GPL violating e-ink devices, to name one of them², see comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41412582 for more discussion about that.
[2] I pick them out from that small crowd because I might have been interested enough to buy one of their products were it not for this issue. Unfortunately many buyers are unaware of the matter, or are aware but don't care sufficiently for it to change their buying decision.
Yes, browser can do that. A browser starts with GET and gets new HTTP 1xx or 3xx response with “Age-Verification: required <age>” header. Browser calls your AVP (defined once in preferences) and gets short-lived certificate of age (expires in 30 seconds), then passes it to website in “Age: <age> <certificate>” header. The website uses known public keys to verify “at least certain age” claim in certificate. AVP public keys can be published in some registry and cached by websites.
reply