5 ms·

Say someone takes your written work (say your online comments, any articles, blogs etc) and claims it as their own. You still have a copy of your work but now y

by czl 3y ago

Say someone takes your written work (say your online comments, any articles, blogs etc) and claims it as their own. You still have a copy of your work but now your audience the authorship is in doubt. Would you be against this happening to you? What are your thoughts about plagiarism? How is this different from "copyright"?

simbolit 3y ago
You are straw-manning. Imagine you encounter a public domain image (which by definition is not protected by copyright), you download it, and put it on your website. Perfectly fine. But if you write "I made this image" below it, you are a liar and a fraud. No copyright needed.
- Retric 3y ago
  Legally you are allowed to lie, also it isn’t fraud. So posting that is perfectly legal for a public domain work and the only thing preventing you from doing with someone alive right now is copyright.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    "the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 3y ago
      That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law preventing some type of action is a rather silly premise, people constantly break laws. Laws moderate behavior so they at best prevent specific incidents instead of totally eliminating specific behaviors.
      - simbolit 3y ago
        Alphanullmeric said "ip shouldn't be a thing". Then CZL asked about the situation where "authorship is in doubt". To which I answered: You don't need no copyright to be a liar and a fraud. To which you answered: copyright is "the only thing preventing you" To which I then answered: No, there are other forces guiding humans as well. that was the "obvious" context. But I doubt this will lead anywhere, tbh. Have a good evening/morning (wherever you are located)
        Retric 3y ago
        Alphanullmeric is taking about IP in a legal context. They want the laws to change, rather than say killing off humanity which would also eventually eliminate IP. Legality is thus the basis for the discussion. Also, changing the text when you quote someone is dishonest and disrespectful. Swapping in ‘ip’ for ‘Intellectual property’ may seem meaningless to you, but they typed it out for a reason.
alphanullmeric 3y ago
Don’t care.

by czl 3y ago

simbolit 3y ago

You are straw-manning. Imagine you encounter a public domain image (which by definition is not protected by copyright), you download it, and put it on your website. Perfectly fine. But if you write "I made this image" below it, you are a liar and a fraud. No copyright needed.

Retric 3y ago
Legally you are allowed to lie, also it isn’t fraud. So posting that is perfectly legal for a public domain work and the only thing preventing you from doing with someone alive right now is copyright.
- simbolit 3y ago
  "the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 3y ago
    That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law preventing some type of action is a rather silly premise, people constantly break laws. Laws moderate behavior so they at best prevent specific incidents instead of totally eliminating specific behaviors.
    - simbolit 3y ago
      Alphanullmeric said "ip shouldn't be a thing". Then CZL asked about the situation where "authorship is in doubt". To which I answered: You don't need no copyright to be a liar and a fraud. To which you answered: copyright is "the only thing preventing you" To which I then answered: No, there are other forces guiding humans as well. that was the "obvious" context. But I doubt this will lead anywhere, tbh. Have a good evening/morning (wherever you are located)
      - Retric 3y ago
        Alphanullmeric is taking about IP in a legal context. They want the laws to change, rather than say killing off humanity which would also eventually eliminate IP. Legality is thus the basis for the discussion. Also, changing the text when you quote someone is dishonest and disrespectful. Swapping in ‘ip’ for ‘Intellectual property’ may seem meaningless to you, but they typed it out for a reason.

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Don’t care.