Sujan

Maybe.

We observed that people migrated off as soon as the applications went into production or were serious, as the database<->api approach did not actually give them all the flexibility they wanted.

(This was 3 years ago, the players that stayed in that market or entered later, of course learned from that and adapted. So I hear they are making their users happy. As are we as an ORM.)

Let’s share our local/national equivalents of Gift of Life, where you can register and potentially donate:

Prisma has pivoted to be “just” a Node.JS ORM a few years ago (I work there). You can still use it to build an API of course, but you will need some additional tool or libraries.

Wonderful insight into that world.

Very relevant to me right now.

But doesn’t the “ What About the Details?” section acknowledge that you will many of the other metrics later anyway for different people, projects and problems? Isn’t the message then “You should know which metrics are relevant to you and only look at them?”

What prevents the problem from coming back if you stop watching for that?

Thank you so much for doing the research and explaining this.

Then the "German" way of doing things is actually _the_ way of doing things, and the US just hase some additional stuff on top.

That also clarifies the twitter thread to me: This was about a _court_ ruling, not some copyright office deciding if something is copyrighted or not (which I assumed because I thought about the German way being special, and my misguided understanding of the US system being the international standard).

I also realize now that further down the twitter thread this is made more explicit. I should really have read more then the first 5 tweets. Sorry.

Important nuance, thanks for letting me know.. I was under the impression you only "got" the copyright by doing that. Do you "forfeit" anything by not doing it as soon/early as possible?

How does the copyright system in Luxembourg work?

In Germany for example (this will ignore a lot of nuance!), there is no applying or denying of copyright. If you created something, you own the copyright. It is even in the German name: "Urheberrecht" literally translates to "right of the creator". It can not be sold. And then there is the second concept of "Verwertungsrecht" or "Nutzungsrecht", which defines who has the right to "utilize" something (often for monetary gain). That fundamentally also starts with the person that created something, but can be sold (either before or after the work is done, for example via a contract).

As far as I know the US copyright system is very different from that, where you have to register or apply, and put (c) on things to show you own the right to moetize (this is even more vague, that is just the impression I got in the last 20 years of being on the internet).

In Germany the big discussion then is around "Schöpfungshöhe" - "threshold of originality" in English maybe - that decides if something is even in this system or not.

Is the discussion in the tweet about that really? If the work deserves to be in the system or not? If so, for "right of creator" or "right to utilize"?