You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Let's talk about: Copyright
Oh, so you're talking about monopolizing single pieces of art, and not art in general?
Well that's just dumb in a different way.
And what the hell, use of ideas? Are you just ranting random stuff with no point?
I have no say about ideas and "permitting the uses of ideas". If you are talking about the ideas in art, if you see a painting of an eagle with face of an elephant, that's an idea. It's not monopolized as an idea.
You can use the same idea and create art based on the same idea.
If I would create a piece of art and you'd just use my art in attempt to make money for yourself, I would try to stop you with the tools I have. And you of course could go crying "BOO HOO YOU ARE TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE ART".
No, I am talking about monopolizing in the sense of copyrights as the inherent function that copyrights have. You understand that monopolizing ideas is at the heart of copyright then you understand it makes no difference if the idea is practical or artistic a million or one, because abstractions being monopolized by individuals is a clear determent to society and has not demonstrated that it indeed helps the artist, inventor or creator, in fact it has demonstrated the opposite while where people don't have copyright competition happens naturally, and artist in turn are compensated better, as there are better ways to get compensated than by telling people what they can and cannot express, which infringes upon freedom of expression.
Hoarding ideas has slowed down the industrial revolution by decades, it has slowed down the age of enlightenment at the same time and because it's repugnant to reason to consider what can be shared without any effort to multitudes of people, as a tangible thing which is bound to scarcity and not the world of abstractions, it's always been built on fantastic constructions that equate Copying to Stealing.
If you try to stop me with all the tools you have, you have better register your work because you won't stop me, and even then I will simply send them a Special and Restricted Appearance when summoned telling them that they have no juristiction and to send me the performance bid bond that has been placed to my address and if there was none to investigate the prosecuting attorney and fine him if it's found that he filed the claim/complaint without posting a bond. I'll be sitting pretty on Land while you are in the Water wasting your time trying to get me to join you in your petty complaint, instead of making more art and being careful about sharing it before you monetize it, because it won't matter if I copy non stop, you won't find a jury of 12 to try me and there won't be a trial because you cannot demonstrate an injury that Man can be prosecuted for. Due process is a motherfucker.
How many replies are you writing? Going around the same things over and over and over again, still making very little point and not basing the rants in real world and facts.
Your comments seem to be showing off your thoughts unrelated to what I say, assuming I'm thinking different things and trying to battle against those thoughts you think I'm having.
You should really focus better.
If you can demonstrate what you are saying in a verifiable and logically cogent clear way I will give you my account.
Echo echo echo echo:
If it's copyrighted then someone does indeed CLAIM legal monopoly on the idea, if you understand what that means.
Haha.
Are you here just to spew all kinds of gibberish without any contact to the reality?
Without any contact to the reality?
GO look up wikipedia Monopoly. It says this:
If you follow through and aren't a complete idiot, to Government-Granted monopoly (the hyperlink is built into the article, idiot)
Contact to "the" reality? You're here denying that there's no monopolizing on ideas when that is exactly what it is described as and that is not some exaggeration however mild because by function, or in other words HOW IT WORKS (idiot) is by exclusive right, which in the sense of exclusive right over making money from an idea is EXACTLY (idiot, there is no argument or interpretation or misunderstanding, it's an interchangeable context) what MONOPOLIZING (the FUNCTION) MEANS (DEFINITION, MEANING).
If you can demonstrate why and how that is gibberish without any contact to reality I will give you my account, this is the third time I challenged you. Tell me again how copyrighting isn't monopolizing on an idea.
Are you talking about copyright law of a single, specific country?
Actually, I am talking about the idea of exclusivity over reproducing an idea or copying it, or Monopolizing the copying of an idea you idiot. It's the same in every country where those Exclusive Rights are granted- State Granted Monopoly BY definition, as exclusive rights is exactly what Monopoly Means.
Idiot. Lmao.
There's no monopolizing on an Idea: it's only that I can hunt you down legally for infringing on my exclusive right to make money off MY idea. (claiming to own ideas. good one, lots of thought and reasons :I made it, it's mine, you cannot use it! .. why? loololoolol)
Hahaha @Xposed the sham of "Let's talk about copyrighs" where it's really by their own admission "Let me tell you about copyrights"/ FAIL
Join in the
Idiot that thinks monopolizing on an idea is not exclusive rights to profit from it.
Do you understand what Monopolizing ideas means? It's the definition of copyright, it's how copyright functions more precisely. So when you judge something dumb without even understanding the basic function of copyrights in clear terms:
It's as valid as any other errenous opinion or belief.
If you create art that depicts an eagle with the head of an elephant, copyrighting means that anyone who make something that can be considered COPYING the idea, be it in the same medium or an entirely different one all together, you can attempt to subjugate their real property rights.
A rant btw is your logical inconsistent judgmeent of what you think I am doing, which is not "crying" anymore than it is "ranting", but making Salient points and speaking in a logical consistency with clarity and specificity and to avail understanding, there was nothing that could be construed as emotional response or incitement in my arguments.
Sir, are you on drugs or are you this when sober? You are ranting nothing related to the point. You are making no point.
This might seem like I'm "logically inconsistent" but it's difficult to seem logically consistent when you are logically inconsistent. You might think there is a logic, but it sure is special. If it's there.
If you can demonstrate that I am logically inconsistent I will give you my account.
You are. I have not been talking about monopolizing ideas, but you are claiming I have done.
We can discuss how you will hand over your password to me later on.
It's actually the very essence of saying that only you can make money from an idea. That's why it's called a Government-Granted-Monopoly. We have been talking about the same exact thing from the beginning, you only sought to deny it without substance, then re-asserted it in the same comment, as the quote above demonstrates. Logic you idiot.
Maybe if you could have explained How and Why we were talking about two different things and how and why it makes my arguments logically inconsistent as if my arguments somehow are predicated on your misunderstanding, confusion: ie demonstrate, instead of assert nonsense or plain lies, as if the conversation EVER changed from talking about monopolizing ideas, as if denying monopolizing of ideas in the begining of your comment without any logic, reason, or substance, while asserting it in the concluding thought without any logic, reason(pettiness?) or substance, is not talking about monopolizing on ideas.
Eat my shit you Idiot.
Because you can explain that or even begin to make sense trying to explain that. Absurdity awatis. Hey Don't Believe me, try it!