I wonder if this poster has a vested interest in being factually wrong. I *boggled* at the same thing you did -- "there is no bill, but this bill could..."
Obviously the artist isn't a writer. *snark* But speaking of writing, just because you are semi-retired from writing fiction, you write software for a living -- which is, guess what? Protected by copyright! (And, many would argue, an art in its own right.)
That said, one does not need to have a vested interest in a topic in order to be able to distinguish fact from mass-hysteria, with a little bit of work. I'm quite impressed with the large number of commenters who have said "Thanks for explaining this -- I had posted about this to my journal/was very worried, but now I'm not." The big difference between your post and the one that seems to have kicked all this off is that you are giving people the resources to go directly to the source(s) and confirm what you are saying, rather than simply saying "trust me, the sky is(n't) falling!" While it would certainly be a better world if everyone fact-checked the details about the latest bit of "doom" legislation before telling all their friends about it, it's understandable how this FUD can spread -- especially when it's framed in such a way as to scare people into believing that their whole vocation is at risk. That so many of these people have been able to admit to having reposted an incorrect bit of misinformation and say "I'm glad that what I said was not in fact the situation; we're better off this way", etc. impresses me. Being able to admit when you were wrong is, in my opinion, a greater virtue than being right.
I seriously have to wonder about the people who seem to want there to be some dire threat to their intellectual property rights -- is it an issue of not wanting to have reposted incorrect information, and clinging to that as though it were fact rather than admit that they were misinformed? Or some desire to be "under attack?" Or do they really just lack the ability to check THOMAS, read the Berne Convention (or a summary), etc., and confirm that what you are saying is, in fact, correct?
no subject
Obviously the artist isn't a writer. *snark* But speaking of writing, just because you are semi-retired from writing fiction, you write software for a living -- which is, guess what? Protected by copyright! (And, many would argue, an art in its own right.)
That said, one does not need to have a vested interest in a topic in order to be able to distinguish fact from mass-hysteria, with a little bit of work. I'm quite impressed with the large number of commenters who have said "Thanks for explaining this -- I had posted about this to my journal/was very worried, but now I'm not." The big difference between your post and the one that seems to have kicked all this off is that you are giving people the resources to go directly to the source(s) and confirm what you are saying, rather than simply saying "trust me, the sky is(n't) falling!" While it would certainly be a better world if everyone fact-checked the details about the latest bit of "doom" legislation before telling all their friends about it, it's understandable how this FUD can spread -- especially when it's framed in such a way as to scare people into believing that their whole vocation is at risk. That so many of these people have been able to admit to having reposted an incorrect bit of misinformation and say "I'm glad that what I said was not in fact the situation; we're better off this way", etc. impresses me. Being able to admit when you were wrong is, in my opinion, a greater virtue than being right.
I seriously have to wonder about the people who seem to want there to be some dire threat to their intellectual property rights -- is it an issue of not wanting to have reposted incorrect information, and clinging to that as though it were fact rather than admit that they were misinformed? Or some desire to be "under attack?" Or do they really just lack the ability to check THOMAS, read the Berne Convention (or a summary), etc., and confirm that what you are saying is, in fact, correct?