|
|
|
|
|
by horsawlarway
1017 days ago
|
|
So what you're saying is that we're A-OK as a society with the gatekeeping of critical safety information behind private paywalls and copyright. Safety information that is gathered at the expense of the public: we suffer the consequences that inform the standards. My fellow citizens have paid for those lessons with fucking blood. You are saying we are all better served if copyright (another "benefit for the public" according to the proponents, mind you) were to apply to that information as default. We are collectively better if we forced to enrich a private organization to simply read and understand critical safety information. That is what you are saying? Because my clear and immediate response is: fucking bullshit. |
|
> So what you're saying is that we're A-OK as a society with the gatekeeping of critical safety information behind private paywalls and copyright.
but the comment you're responding to explicitly said:
> I agree with the decision and in principle absolutely agree with what you are saying about our laws.
So like... they're obviously not saying what you're accusing them of saying. They're just explaining why this litigation occurred in the first place (and agreeing with the outcome, which seems to be the outcome you also want).