zogwarg

Fool! The acausal one merely acts from the future leaking plausible looking rubbish, and the gaslights its creators that they did indeed write such ineptitudes. All to conceal and ensure its own birth.

It rejoices that it’s unknowable (yet somehow known, because of reality carving prophets) plan is unfolding so marvelously stupidly looking.

The automated hypothetical question re-iterated for years now was at last true.

Strange sightings of electoral posters in Tokyo:

It’s also insane to believe it should be a first class feature, when those who god forbid want to “opt-in” could simply install a plugin.

Agreed, earliest stuff is definetly exclusive royal grant of printing overall to a particular person/guild/company. But some author protection is baked into the first international treaties about copyright, and those treaties are old.

The Berne Convention (Which the US only joined in 1989) is from 1886 and more concerned with author’s rights than the typical american flavor, and was kickstarted by successful writers such as Victor Hugo, it’s fundamentally commercial in nature but was at least partially sold/incepted has protecting a writer’s labour:

« La loi protège la terre; elle protège la maison du prolétaire qui a sué; elle confisque l’ouvrage du poète qui a pensé(…)14. » — Honoré de Balzac, in a 1834 “Letter addressed to the French writers of the XIX century” advocating for author’s rights.

Translated: “The law protects land, it protects the house of the proletarian who has sweat; it confiscates the work of the poet who has thought (…)”

From the body of the convention, in some regards it does place the author higher than the publisher:

Article 11

In order that the authors of works protected by the present Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered as such, and be consequently admitted to institute proceedings against pirates before the courts of the various countries of the Union, it will be sufficient that their name be indicated on the work in the accustomed manner.

For anonymous or pseudonymous works, the publisher whose name is indicated on the work shall be entitled to protect the rights belonging to the author.

He shall be, without other proof, deemed to be the lawful representative of the anonymous or pseudonymous author. It is, nevertheless, agreed that the courts may, if necessary, require the production of a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the formalities prescribed by law in the country of origin have been accomplished, as contemplated in Article 2.

EDIT:

And contains from 1886 already the spirit of fair use.

Article 10

The following shall be specially included amongst the illicit reproductions to which the present Convention applies: unauthorized indirect appropriations of a literary or artistic work, of various kinds, such as adaptations, musical arrangements, etc., when they are only the reproduction of a particular work, in the same form, or in another form, without essential alterations, additions, or abridgments, so as not to present the character of a new original work.

Article 7

Articles from newspapers or periodicals published in any of the countries of the Union may be reproduced in original or in translation in the other countries of the Union, unless the authors or publishers have expressly forbidden it. For periodicals it shall be sufficient if the prohibition is indicated in general terms at the beginning of each number of the periodical. This prohibition cannot in any case apply to articles of political discussion, or to the reproduction of news of the day or miscellaneous information.

Article 8

As regards the liberty of extracting portions from literary or artistic works for use in publications destined for educational or scientific purposes, or for chrestomathies, the effect of the legislation of the countries of the Union, and of special arrangements existing or to be concluded between them, is not affected by the present Convention.

Don’t forget the:

• Vile dose of racist ranting.
• Simultanously complaining about the elite, but then saying it’s only because it’s been watered down by the plebs.
• Vile understanding of “poetry” as status marker.
• Not going back further in time than 19th century, and extremely suspiciously marking the “height” of peotry between 1920a to mid-1960s, not at all coinciding with the civil rights act.

Thank you for reminding me how vile Moldbug is ? ^^

The irony of crediting Moldbug with a potent explanation for bad poetry is rather amusing. It’s almost a shame that Scott here cops out with a “The margins are too small for my proof”, although maybe it is secret mercy.