• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle





  • Semele was just a priestess who got diddled by Zeus, as you do, and got pregnant with Dionysus.

    However, after shenanigans by Hera, she got tricked into asking Zeus to show himself to her in his full godly might, and because he was oathbound due to earlier power-of-boner stuff, he had to unwillingly comply.

    He tried his best to show the tiniest sliver of his true being that would count, but she was still mortal, and got burned in godly flame for just witnessing him.

    Zeus, saved the foetal Dionysus by strapping him to his thigh until the thigh-pregnancy was complete, and later, Dionysus found his mom in the underworld, and made her into the God of Drunk Frenzy.

    Following all that, Semele appears to be uppity about her incredible husband to her sister, because Semeles husband carried their fetus to term after Semele died, while her sister’s husband was a mere wife-and-son-murder-attempter.

    I love out of context ancient greek mythology. Btw, all that, makes Dionysus the only god in this graph, apart from Gaia herself, to not be the product of direct incest. (Is brain-parthenogenesis incest? Who knows)








  • I’m getting the sense that you didn’t actually watch the whole video, because your only two points in this comment,

    In the absence of IP laws, creatives would be able to create their works, but they’d also be competing against companies that have the resources to monetize, influence the general public, and kill the franchise through poor choices.

    And

    It’s really important to know that the vast majority of people aren’t going to have the goodwill to tip or otherwise support free works, and it’s even less likely if a large company does enough marketing to overshadow an artist.

    , are answered during the video, and I don’t see you arguing the points made by him, you’re just straight up stating the opposite.

    And your first point,

    Right now, a majority of creatives don’t own their IP in the legal sense, and they can’t stop large companies from milking their works dry as a result.

    , is about how the current system doesn’t work to protect actual artists, yet does work to protect large IP-pimping companies.


  • “Reasonable control” is only possible in the legal sense, not the real sense, so I doubt artists care about it, outside of monetisation, which is what we’re attempting to replace.

    Right now as we are speaking, the art of thousands upon thousands of those creators is being stolen constantly by legally gray AI scraping by huge companies, or illegally by smaller merch leeches.

    The internet makes data protection impossible.

    The law, only prevents the most egregious kinds of ‘monetisation with someone else’s art’, and is unable to stop the rest, for practical reasons.

    If artists didn’t have to worry about being compensated enough… Would they still want to have “reasonable control”? Would we still “risk” them being “demotivated”, from being unable to forbid others specifically from making money with their ideas?

    I think the human drive to create isn’t that neurotic. I think this kind of “demotivation” only happens for the kind of human who has been abused for years by the rules of the absurd economy we live in. And that’s what we’re saying should change.