• ChaoticNeutralCzech
    link
    fedilink
    211 year ago

    Child pornography is not necessarily abuse.

    Yuck. People are making this argument now that AI-generated images exist but there is a reason r34 drawings of underage-looking fictional characters are banned too. Anyway, his points on copyright are alright; I don’t see why companies should retain rights to 20-year-old abandonware that they haven’t touched upon since its discontinuation.

    • EuphoricPenguin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I mean, perhaps in the most general sense that is technically true. For example, there have been cases about this that have come from parents taking pictures of their kids in the bathtub, even if the charges were eventually dropped. If that particular court case had gone differently, it might’ve set a very destructive precedent that served only to rip apart families.

      Still, 99% of the cases that produce this material are done so in an exploitative and abusive context; definitely not arguing with that. No idea what Aaron was talking about in that particular link, but this is the one counterexample that I think of that is valid, assuming it went a different direction in court.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        The link makes a (imo pretty valid) case for decriminalization of CP “consumption”, at least in cases where it’s not provably voluntary.

        Sharing though is a different issue altogether and there’s absolutely no way someone sharing that stuff on the internet is doing it unintentionally.

        • EuphoricPenguin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I think it’s a very specific case that needs to be taken in a very narrow context; it’s essentially an innocent mistake that needs to be recognized as such. The moment you step outside of that, I see no reasonable arguments for decriminalizing anything.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Thing is it’s very hard to prove what’s an innocent mistake and what’s intentional behavior if we’re just talking about viewing. I personally think that alone shouldn’t guarantee more than getting put on a watchlist.

      • diprount_tomato
        link
        fedilink
        -41 year ago

        99% of the cases that produce this material are done so in an exploitative and abusive context

        99%? Man you can just go full 100%

        The only exception would be the r34 drawings if you consider them to be on the same level

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          101 year ago

          Medical material. Keepsake photos of your newborn. A minor sending a nude pic to their minor partner.

          Plenty of situations where technically illegal material is made with no malice at all.

        • EuphoricPenguin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Picking and choosing isn’t the game I want to play, I’m just highlighting that there are circumstances that can result in actually innocent people doing things without thinking. Pornographic content of any kind (drawings or otherwise) that depicts underage people in any context is something I think should be illegal and avoided at all costs, but I’m highlighting that there is edge-cases in everything.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -41 year ago

        Parents taking pictures of kids in the bathtub is evil and I would try to put my parents in jail for it if I could.

        • EuphoricPenguin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I don’t really think it’s something people should do, but I can honestly see it happening to ordinary people if they aren’t thinking about what they’re doing.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      I don’t know why the grandkids or a corporate publisher of something written 75+ yrs ago should still get royalties based on copyright either but here we are with insane copyright laws.

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Well, I kinda get the longetivity of trademarks but you should absolutely be able to redistribute 40+ year old movies. If a studio is still making cash off the original Star Wars trilogy, they can remain in the green despite outputting literal garbage. Trademarks should have looser regulation so that you can release a clearly-labeled parody Mario game or non-canon Star Trek animation short without repercussion, like how the Touhou community works.