Does it mean that they should be removed entirely? Surely we can agree on the fact that I should not be allowed to make a copy of a book, put my name on it instead of the real author, and sell it? Or even claim that I wrote it and put it on my resume?
> Does it mean that they should be removed entirely?
Maybe. I think it means we're at a spot where I'm not reasonably convinced that existing copyright laws are actually better than the free-for-all you're describing.
I'm definitely with you that it'd be ideal if we had a way to handle direct plagiarism like described in your comment (Although if you dropped the "put my name on it" part, I don't really see much issue).
But we also have all the fun today of companies using copyright to silence critique, shut out competitors, take educational information offline, demonetize videos they don't like, and otherwise absolutely abuse the hammers copyright law has given them (often - with no reciprocal hammer to stop this type of abuse).
And that's not even getting into the discussion of whether or not 70+ year old characters and stories should be available for modern authors to reuse and reinterpret. (even more egregious when you consider the vast majority of those tales are direct reinterpretations of older stories themselves...).
Or we can discuss whether it should really be legal to sell electronics hardware that has digital locks inside it that not only am I (the legal owner) not given the key to, but for which it is literally illegal for me to even attempt to open.
----
So basically - If I had to pick between "You'll own nothing and rent everything, and all public discourse is subject to DMCA strikes or other removal" vs "no copyright"... My vote is for "no copyright".
But the reality is I think we can strike a much better balance than those extremes, we just can't do it without upsetting large profit streams for existing, very wealthy and entrenched, entities... and usually that doesn't happen without tearing things down first.
Copyright is the friend to the 1% and the enemy of the everyone else.
(Of course, I'm using "the 1%" rhetorically, it's really more like 0.01%)
As a society, we all clearly benefit from fair use far more than we benefit from members of the copyright cartel buying another mansion or private jet.
Tangental: I have a 3 yr old Niche Zero, they are excellent - but they are not first conical. They used the burr from another famous grinder (I was more into all this shit but don't remember now)
Looks you have brought a touch of Dyson to the world of coffee. I hope you do well! I can't see your presence online at all, like no search results other than this HN post which is odd. If you can ship in January you might want to be marketing a bit more.
Have you patented the cylindrical grinder? That looks like a new idea. I wouldn't mind trying that.
Needs a youtube demo video I think. Plus you might want to give one to a few coffee influencers. Maybe give it to a few r/espresso regulars first to pedant about, then fix those things, as you don't want a crap review.
Or can some RSU rich HN-ian just buy it and post a review, pls :-)
This is actually the only place I've posted it haha. Will incorporate feedback from here (especially more candid video content) before proceeding.
I filed for a patent a couple days ago on the burr assembly, and a design patent on the wood arch thing, but definitely not looking to prevent anyone from making their own. Only to prevent some massive company from running off with it or even patenting it since I'm never going to be that high profile.
For the researchers - because it is fun most likely, and they get paid for it. For society, I am glad we live in a society where some money is skimmed off for curiousity. But for a pratical reasons - this stuff (or some other bet) rears up as useful years down the line for something practical. Maybe some kind of cryptography or making quantum computing feasible... who knows! Imaginary numbers are pretty useful in science, and they probably seemed exotic when they first were talked about.
