Activity Feed
Okay so without referring to current legislation. I understand that it is currently illegal, just like tax evasion, but that won't go far in persuading me that it isn't right.
#1379·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoYou’re violating her rights: specifically, her copyright. That’s an aggression.
Why am I violating her rights?
#1380·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoYour perspective on whether she loses anything really doesn’t matter. That’s the same even for cold hard property. If I exchange your tic tacs for $1,000,000 without your consent, you only win, you didn’t lose, but it’s still theft.
agreed
Your perspective on whether she loses anything really doesn’t matter. That’s the same even for cold hard property. If I exchange your tic tacs for $1,000,000 without your consent, you only win, you didn’t lose, but it’s still theft.
You’re violating her rights: specifically, her copyright. That’s an aggression.
#1375·Amaro Koberle, about 1 year agoAm I committing aggression against JK Rowling if I pirate a PDF copy of Harry Potter?
Yes.
#1338·Amaro Koberle, about 1 year agoAll that being said, I think crediting people for inspiration is good form and should be part of common polite behavior.
Credit is a different matter from copyright. Plagiarism and copyright infringement aren’t the same thing.
Am I committing aggression against JK Rowling if I pirate a PDF copy of Harry Potter?
#1371·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
I should be clear though that it is only right for the law to interfere with property to protect others’ rights. It’s not right for the law to confiscate your money to collect taxes, say.
#1371·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
true!
So… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
#1368·Amaro Koberle, about 1 year agoMaybe? Kinda? Not sure.
You don't get to use your knife to aggress on others, that much is clear. So perhaps this can be understood as a right of others to do certain things with your property.
Right, like preventing you from murdering them.
#1339·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year ago‘To stop someone from murdering you you have to infringe on his private property by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned gun to shoot you’ How is that different?
Maybe? Kinda? Not sure.
You don't get to use your knife to aggress on others, that much is clear. So perhaps this can be understood as a right of others to do certain things with your property.
Some people abuse the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, but that doesn’t mean the corresponding laws are bad per se. Those are problems, errors that can be corrected.
#1363·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoSo if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
I can also think of ways this could be misused.
#1363·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoSo if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
I'm not sure, seriously. I'm open to suggestions.
There's lots of things that I think people shouldn't do yet should still be legal.
So if someone publishes a blog post falsely but believably accusing you of being a pedophile and then all your business partners stop talking to you and you lose all your money and your friends and family ghost you, you wouldn’t want to have any legal recourse?
#1359·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoTake someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.
I'm not sure it's a good thing.
#1359·Dennis Hackethal, about 1 year agoTake someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.
Reputation is scarce in the sense that it’s limited.
#1346·Amaro Koberle, about 1 year agoThe issue is scarcity. Digital money is also scarce since you cannot double spend it. If it wasn't scarce, it wouldn't be money and neither would it be private property.
Take someone’s reputation. That isn’t a ‘scarce’ thing yet it’s a good thing there are laws against defamation.
#1335·Amaro Koberle, about 1 year agoIntellectual property is a contradiction in terms because information isn't scarce the same way that private property necessarily must be.
Duplicate of #1346.