psychothumbs@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 months agoYet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving itwalledculture.orgexternal-linkmessage-square68fedilinkarrow-up1292arrow-down115cross-posted to: piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
arrow-up1277arrow-down1external-linkYet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving itwalledculture.orgpsychothumbs@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 months agomessage-square68fedilinkcross-posted to: piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
minus-squareKairos@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down2·4 months agoThis title is actually false under some logical fallacy. It should be “Yet more examples of copyright destroying culture rather than driving it.”
minus-squareFiniteBanjo@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down2·4 months agoNo, because OP clearly believes all copyright is bad while your corrected title would be at least some/most copyright has proven to be bad.
minus-squareKairos@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down2·4 months agoEh. Belief doesn’t really override logical fallacies. I know. In being pendantic, but I hate misleading headlines, especially when its a statistic. If it’s a beleif the author should state that.
minus-squareconciselyverbose@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoThere is no logical fallacy. It also is not a statistic. 🤷🏼♀️
minus-squareFiniteBanjo@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down2·4 months agoYou can say they’re incorrect, but you cannot correct their intentions. Only they can do that.
minus-squarethemurphy@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoAs a non English speaker, I can’t tell the difference. Might be the same for OP.
minus-squareHexesofVexes@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoExists culture Exists copyright s.t. copyright ‘destroys’ culture and not copyright ‘drives’ culture. I mean, you’re putting an implied universal where the author is only offering existential. That one is on you! “Copyright always destroys culture” would have the universal quantifier you object to. Of course, both of these results are formally undecided, mostly because ‘drives’ is not well defined nor decidable in itself!
This title is actually false under some logical fallacy. It should be “Yet more examples of copyright destroying culture rather than driving it.”
No, because OP clearly believes all copyright is bad while your corrected title would be at least some/most copyright has proven to be bad.
Eh. Belief doesn’t really override logical fallacies. I know. In being pendantic, but I hate misleading headlines, especially when its a statistic.
If it’s a beleif the author should state that.
There is no logical fallacy.
It also is not a statistic. 🤷🏼♀️
You can say they’re incorrect, but you cannot correct their intentions. Only they can do that.
As a non English speaker, I can’t tell the difference. Might be the same for OP.
Exists culture Exists copyright s.t. copyright ‘destroys’ culture and not copyright ‘drives’ culture.
I mean, you’re putting an implied universal where the author is only offering existential. That one is on you!
“Copyright always destroys culture” would have the universal quantifier you object to.
Of course, both of these results are formally undecided, mostly because ‘drives’ is not well defined nor decidable in itself!