Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 9886602" data-attributes="member: 6778210">The pushback was simply because y'all were looking to discredit the piece without understanding it. Like, what do you think you'd get for putting it through Claude and saying "Well, it feels like this footnote here kind of destroys the whole argument" without actually knowing the purpose of the piece?Because y'all didn't even read the intro before you started trying to discredit it. I can admit that I haven't studied the piece in-depth like I might if I were using it for a formal citation, but God help me I went over a lot of it simply out of curiosity. But I can confidently state I read more than you did because I was concerned with actually engaging with it instead of immediately discrediting it. I've gotten over most of the piece (though not to my typical depth) and I find it pretty compelling, especially the idea that current copyright doesn't line up with the intent or intended ideas of what was going on, and how literary property could cover those areas. It's the sort of discussion that I think should be around this stuff given the hellscape that modern copyright currently is. And it's more interesting to read about an expert's opinion on the matter than whatever an LLM is saying.</blockquote>