RE: Why Ginabot rocks and catching another plagiarist
Hello, Baah. You're having trouble to distinguish absolute ownership and subjective ownership.
Absolute ownership is a theoretical impossibility by which an individual can "own" something through divine rights or universal truths. It is impossible unless you believe that a god exists who gives such ownership of something to someone.
Relative ownership is the opinion of individuals of the belonging of a certain object. If I think that a certain piece of paper that fell to the floor is mine and I pick it up, but you pick it up first because you think you own it, there is no "real ownership" but the one that will result from the discussion of our opinions. I will say "Hey, I saw that falling out of my pocket, it's mine" and you'll say something similar to fight for your right to keep the piece of paper.
If I grab your comment and I say "I wrote this" and I repost it everywhere and everyone credits me, @cryptosharon, for your comment and I get a lot of money for it, you'd feel bad because it was actually you who wrote it but I'm getting the credit. It is not because you hold absolute rights for it, but relative rights for it (coming from your opinion and the opinion held by the members of the surrounding social context).
There is a lot to debate about copyright, ownership, licenses, terms of usage, et. al., but saying "ownership doesn't exist" is just not the way to do it. Claiming and enforcing ownership of certain things might be bad for productivity, technololgical advancement or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that ownership is subjective and exists as long as someone thinks it exists.
Ownership is an opinion, but it has real consequences depending on the regulations that are present in each context. In the Steem blockchain, there is an absolute freedom. This means that anyone can say anything they want. But there are subjective regulations (as regulations are always subjective). These regulations are not called laws by any means, but they are imposed by users.
@grumpycat sets his own rules, for example, and enforces them. There is no absolute rule that says that having a bid bot that accepts more than 3.5 days is bad, but Grumpy Cat thinks that it is so and, JUST BY THE FACT that he THINKS that this should be so and acts upon it, we can say that there is a regulation.
Ownership is the same. I own my writings because I think I own them and the society that surrounds me thinks that I own them. But if nobody thought that, I would not own it.
And why are we talking about absolute ownership? We are discussing Ownership over Ideas.
And why are we discussing Ownership in general, as when someone Posses something? Keeping the piece of paper isn't something you Fight for because EVEN DOGS, yes, DOGS, know what STEALING is.
And what if I don't feel bad because what you eat I don't shit. What if all I do is call you a liar and plagiarizer and could give a fuck less if you made anything doing that. Here is my "misunderstanding" of absolute vs relative ownership (what a load of bullshit)
Intellectual Ownership Theft IF Intellectual ownership had any resemblance to Actual Ownership:
I made a sculpture. Someone copies the sculpture and authors it and goes around the world to talk about it saying that THEY DID IT FIRST. The first person claims that they own the second sculpture and all the money people paid to see it, and they would be right even though they wouldn't have intended to take the sculpture out of the backyard.
Actual Ownership Theft, without any bullshit Absolute to allude that ownership is as transitory as the rest of the world as if the point was that it's not Absolute:
Someone makes a sculpture. Someone steals that sculpture.
Actually, that is exactly what you have said when you relegated it to the only opinion, does Opinion Exist? Can the abstraction ever be Tangible? Did I say that Ownership doesn't exist or does exist? Is that what you make when I say that owning ideas doesn't make sense. It's counter to logic, it's repugnant to freedom of thought and creativity and ultimately it doesn't serve the artist, only the courts and the Publishers, if the artist want to get paid they would have done it as they have been doing it for millenia before copyrights ever existed and as they have been doing ever since because if you're living off royalties the publisher is raking them in, and if you're not getting shit for your work then you can be your ass someone is eating from copying and distribuiting it around, all that hard copy work.
Ownership is not an Opinion. Ownership is a Right, but intellectual ownership, such as copyright and patents are antiquated and idiotic opinions, and opinions indeed, that's why you're on an OPEN SOURCE, completely transparent platform, because if you COPY the work AND claim it as your own, ain't nobody going to get "hurt" feelings or feel baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.
With all due respect, you're still misunderstanding the different kinds of ownership.
There is an "ownership as an opinion" and an "ownership as a right". One is a thought, the other is a social convention.
You did say that. Ideas are the abstract, content is the concrete. So basically you said that nothing can be owned. I can own anything I want. I can own your head if my distorted mind thinks I somehow own it. That will be my opinion. You will disagree, of course, and society will disagree, and, legally, I will not own it, but I will in my mind.
Someone makes a sculpture, someone steals the IDEA of the sculpture. The sculpture is concrete, yet it has abstract values such as its shape and what it represents. Someone makes another sculpture with the same shape and, by extension, same representation.
The first sculptor owns his sculpture because he thinks he does and society around him accepts the fact as such. The second sculptor owns his sculpture because it is his opinion, and society agrees that he owns his sculpture but society disagrees that he owns AUTHORSHIP of the sculpture.
There is no "actual ownership". There is absolute and relative ownership, and under relative ownership there is ownership as an opinion (effective only in the thinker's mind) and ownership as a right (effective in a community such as human society).
I either SAID it, or I "basically said it". Stop Interpreting my words and making confusion where there is none. I said that it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, it's ILLOGICAL, to OWN or POSSES ideas. I didn't say that Ownership Doesn't Exist because I said that Intelectual Ownership Doesn't Make Sense, and I didn't basically say it simply because you assert a construed connection and interpret it in some kind of absolute.
Actually, there is ACTUAL Ownership and ACTUAL Authorship, and it makes no difference if it's ABSOLUTE, or INFINITE, or IMMUTABLE, and even dogs recognize it, not Human society.
Open Source means that you can copy it AND alter it. It doesn't mean you can claim it, but nobody is getting BROUGHT DOWN for plagiarizing open source, they won't have money to bring anyone down.