3 ms·

I'm pretty confident you could argue and win that the 13th Amendment should have also ended copyright and patent law. https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phra

by breck 4y ago

I'm pretty confident you could argue and win that the 13th Amendment should have also ended copyright and patent law. https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html

gregjor 4y ago
Sorry but the arguments come across as juvenile. If someone can redefine “property,” “slavery,” and “rights” to mean anything to fit their argument then they can prove almost anything. Courts don’t work like that though.
- breck 4y ago
  Wow you're quite the expert. How many Constitutional Amendments have you passed?
  - gregjor 4y ago
    As many as the author of the article: none. The most recent amendment to the US Constitution passed in 1992, when the author was four. I do have the advantage of US citizenship and living in America rather than in Russia. You didn't deliver the withering comeback you think you did. Very few people have passed amendments to the Constitution or had anything to do with that process. But the history of intellectual property law in the US can fairly well inform someone familiar with US law and history that equating it to slavery -- which the US had a literal civil war over -- and trying to get support for amending the Constitution to ban IP will get exactly nowhere.
    - breck 4y ago
      You keep saying "intellectual property" but that term makes no sense, like saying "dry water". Property rights and the arrangement of those atoms are fundamentally incompatible. You cannot be for property rights and also for copyrights and patents—that would be like saying you are dry while you swim in the ocean—it's a stupid statement, to be blunt, and suggests you should maybe try to rewire some broken connections in your mind. Just because plenty of sheep are willing to go along and repeat stupid things does not mean I will give you a pass. https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html
      - gregjor 4y ago
        According to the wacko article you keep linking to maybe the term makes no sense, but I use that term because the article you seem to love so much uses it (with an incorrect understanding of the term, but still). Arguing by analogy, as you and the author of the linked article do multiple times, makes for a very weak foundation to base legal challenges on. So good luck with that, I look forward to reading about your victories in court based on proving that intellectual property equals slavery, and that no one can own IP, and so on. Get your analogies about dry water and intellectual slavery sharpened so you can teach those judges a thing or two.
        breck 4y ago
        > I look forward to reading about your victories in court Thanks! Me too. A long road ahead though, not going to sugar coat it.

by breck 4y ago

gregjor 4y ago

Sorry but the arguments come across as juvenile. If someone can redefine “property,” “slavery,” and “rights” to mean anything to fit their argument then they can prove almost anything. Courts don’t work like that though.

breck 4y ago
Wow you're quite the expert. How many Constitutional Amendments have you passed?
- gregjor 4y ago
  As many as the author of the article: none. The most recent amendment to the US Constitution passed in 1992, when the author was four. I do have the advantage of US citizenship and living in America rather than in Russia. You didn't deliver the withering comeback you think you did. Very few people have passed amendments to the Constitution or had anything to do with that process. But the history of intellectual property law in the US can fairly well inform someone familiar with US law and history that equating it to slavery -- which the US had a literal civil war over -- and trying to get support for amending the Constitution to ban IP will get exactly nowhere.
  - breck 4y ago
    You keep saying "intellectual property" but that term makes no sense, like saying "dry water". Property rights and the arrangement of those atoms are fundamentally incompatible. You cannot be for property rights and also for copyrights and patents—that would be like saying you are dry while you swim in the ocean—it's a stupid statement, to be blunt, and suggests you should maybe try to rewire some broken connections in your mind. Just because plenty of sheep are willing to go along and repeat stupid things does not mean I will give you a pass. https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html
    - gregjor 4y ago
      According to the wacko article you keep linking to maybe the term makes no sense, but I use that term because the article you seem to love so much uses it (with an incorrect understanding of the term, but still). Arguing by analogy, as you and the author of the linked article do multiple times, makes for a very weak foundation to base legal challenges on. So good luck with that, I look forward to reading about your victories in court based on proving that intellectual property equals slavery, and that no one can own IP, and so on. Get your analogies about dry water and intellectual slavery sharpened so you can teach those judges a thing or two.
      - breck 4y ago
        > I look forward to reading about your victories in court Thanks! Me too. A long road ahead though, not going to sugar coat it.