4 ms·
> There's nothing nefarious about that. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-
by wz1000 9y ago
> There's nothing nefarious about that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/?utm_term=.018a8d20cb8d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
A small example of the nefarious behaviour you support by paying for Netflix.
> Yes, this is the basis of our society. I work for money to buy things, mostly from corporations
Intellectual Property is by definition "non-excludable", which means my having access to some information does not exclude you from having access to the same information, unlike land or food or clothing. It is very different from these, and using your Government to violate the sovereignty of other nations and individuals to impose your warped up notions of property is deeply unethical.
- madeofpalk 9y agoWhat?
- klapinat0r 9y agoI think he meant to use exclusivity as a straw man to show that "IP is not food", instead of the more often misused: "not paying is not equal to stealing". Both are obviously false, but I think that was the intend (argument by confusion?).
- raverbashing 9y agoSo did Stallman finally start using a web browser?