In order to understand why this is pushed, consider that maps through history rarely have been only a tool for the technician. Maps usually conveyed a lot of social information, take a look at medieval ones to understand the point.

This explains why the UN is making such an otherwise stupid resolution from a mathematical point of view.

We are in 2026: why not a rotating globe?

Isn't this more like a 1997 website, though? ;-)

(I.e., all the webpages with a rotating globe with "News" spelled around it in the fashion of the animated Universal logo, embedded as an animated GIF [GIF89a].)

The point is to be seen fighting, not to have accurate maps.

very cool, but no matter how I twist it, when zooming I zoom only on the testicles.

thank you for the laugh

No one, but history tells us this isn't a problem. Publishers will still want to pay you in order to have the opportunity to be the first to the market with the copies, and this is what makes a lot of money under the assumption your work will make a lot of money. If the assumption is false, then no copyright will give you money, if anything will prevent you from the remote opportunity of freely made copies to circulate and become famous of their own; at which point, publishers would want to make a contract with you for your next work.

We are too much used to copyright that fail to see how we would be better without.

It is bullshit also because it hasn’t protected anyone. Copyright only protects massive corporations.

It gives the false sense to individuals that they are protected but they steal from individuals all the time and have the resources to define themselves from us.

They can stall in court for years to bankrupt you.

At least without copyright it puts us on equal footing

that's correct, I am against copyright in any form of sorts. I know this is unpopular, but I really can't think of a logical argument that justifies it (I have read plenty; luckily I have no decision making power). Copyright in my view is simply an obsolete concept that tries to coerce private property of scarce resources in the realm of ideas. But ideas aren't scarce, neither are digital copies. It's like private property of air.

I don't agree. Free software would still be free even if copyright were to be abolished, if anything it would flourish further. That is because even proprietary software could be better integrated.

You're conflating what "Free Software" means and what Copyleft means. In any case, they both need protection from people like you who want to take it and benefit for free, without having to give anything back. Copyleft was designed specifically to prevent against people with your mindset. Permissively licensed software needs copyright to protect authorship rules, although the requirements are lessened.

I think the troubling mindset is that of who accuses strangers on the internet of misbehaving without knowing their opinions.

Software doesn't need any protection. People want protection.

> Software doesn't need any protection. People want protection.

Correct, people want protection for the hard labour they put into doing something good (writing software) for the world, and to not have it co-opted for individual profit over communal profit.

1) costs? 2) profits/costs?

it includes an anti-urination idea for outdoors, which may be worth noting.

There is a false dichotomy here. There are people who view code as "art", in the sense outlined here, and yet rely on LLMs for some tasks.

Hypocrisy is the only constant in humanity.