"copyrights are harmful because intellectual property is baaad, mmmkay?"

>"copyrights are harmful because intellectual property is baaad, mmmkay?"
*proceeds to employ copyrights to enforce the GPL*

Hmmm, I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the mourning!

Other urls found in this thread:

gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_agreement
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Who are you quoting?

Whom*

>664477

Whoms't*

Intellectual property is not property.
You cannot "own" the concept of addition/subtraction. You cannot inherit math operations nor can transfer the ownership of it.

>Support a candidate that promises free health care
>''Free'' health care provided by the big pharmaceutical/health companies using taxpayer money
Jews are always on the wrong side of history

The entire point of the GPL is to subvert copyright laws, hence "copyleft".

op cuntfirmed brainlet

Please enlighten me as to what makes physical personal/private property more "real" than intellectual property. Both are defined according to the bearers ability to defend their ownership. In the case on intellectual property, this means limiting access to the "property" in question.

>make uncopyrighted program
>some company steals it, copyrights it, and sells it
wow I wish we had some way to keep free software free...

What's the difference between copyright and copyleft?

Copyright restricts copying.
Copyleft does the opposite.

It's RMS' best hack ever.

>defined according to the bearers ability to defend their ownership
Since when?

Go ahead and spawn an infinite amount of houses then, sorcerer.

How can you "defend" your concept of addition, dumb fuck? Even if you don't share your concept sooner or later people will invent the exact same concept without even interacting you. You can't claim that you own addition.
Whereas you have proofs that you purchased the pencil and you own it.

>I don't know how copyrights work: The Post

So when we reach post-scarcity, there will be no right to private property anymore?

Just kill those people.

>I don't know how the world really works: the post

Do you consider the immediate air around you your private property?

>|"`[y'all'd've would've better stop using multiple quote symbols. That's not what this is for]`"

But simple arithmetic operations aren't subject to intellectual property laws, user. Your argument is a strawman.

The fact that you used the word "copyright" as a verb shows how much of an ignoramus and a moron you are, you little wiener.

>spend a lot of time making software and giving it away under the GPL
>some company takes it and sells it
>I get no code or monetary contributions
wow I wish we had some way to keep me financed while also giving my work away for free...

Yes, when you become unable to defend your intellectual ownership, you lose it and therefore nobody can claim that they own addition by their lack of defense.

What are you having trouble understanding? Perhaps I can help.

Go ahead and spawn an infinite amount of air then, sorcerer.

>you used the word copyright as a verb
You don't even know how English works yet you call me a moron? Top kek this has to be bait

>write code
>make it available to the Chinese with no restraints
>but force American businesses to also release their own source code if they wanna use it
wow, I wish people wouldn't notice right away that I'm a paid Chinese operative...

>Yes, when you become unable to defend your intellectual ownership, you lose it and therefore nobody can claim that they own addition by their lack of defense.
Exactly, you can't own an idea. You cannot gain ownership of it, you cannot sell or give away your ownership of it and you cannot "defend" it

Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”

The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.

To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”. gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

That's where you're wrong, kiddo. That has been done for centuries now. Cry more.

Example where the ownership of the idea is given away?

What meme is this?

It's the one autistic "muh china" boogeyman loser. His last thread was a failure.

You are an idiot. If you write some software but give up the copyrights on it, it's in the public domain and can't be "copyrighted" by anybody else. What you suggested here is absurd. Try not to be retarded.

Public domain.

Nice try, Zhang. Try being more subtle next time.

Doesn't work.
You can still write the same project and use it, the ownership of the idea was never transferred.

>Public domain.

I was obviously exaggerating, but you could take the program, change it a little and then copyright it. GPL prevents this by forcing you to make your changes free as well so preserve the freedom

What you want is copyright transfer then.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_agreement

Stallman opposes copyrights though, but the GPL wouldn't be able to accomplish what it does without employing copyrights, hence the cognitive disonance.

Copyright transfer transfer copyrights not ideas. Try again, "kiddo"

In a world without copyright the GPL wouldn't be necessary, but since the ability to abuse the system exists you have to use the system to get around it until you can dismantle the system altogether.

He opposes non-free software, not copyrights. It just so happens anything digital falls under free software banner, hence his opposition to DRM. However I don't think he has a problem with copyrighted physical materials like books or records

>property deed transfers ownership, not houses

>In a world without copyright the GPL wouldn't be necessary
How? According to you, the purpose of the GPL is to prevent someone taking the program you made available for free, changing it slightly and then distributing only binaries but not the source. How would the absence of copyrights prevent that?

>property deed transfers houses, not ownership of the houses

>According to you
Cease and desist, I have not been involved in this argument until the post you replied to.
>How would the absence of copyrights prevent that?
Absence of copyright would if not outright prevent make it more difficult to legally paywall things, unless you can somehow enforce an EULA upon download. So someone could still do that but they'd have a much harder time profiting from it, which lessens the negative impact.

He clearly is opposed to copyrights though. Just read literally any of his essays on intellectual property. Heck, he's even collaborated with Larry Lessig!

Being opposed to something doesn't mean you can't recognize it's necessity in the current state of the world. Not everything is black or white

>>what is metonymy?

>mourning

Oh, so this isn't really about freedom, it's about profit. Freetards always end up showing us their true communist colours!

It does mean you're a hypocrite if you make use of it though.

...

So? He's working toward a better tomorrow. If you can't see the utility of the GPL in a copyright culture then you're retarded. Simply avoiding using any copyright won't preserve free software

I'm not sure how the scenario in question prevents the original code from being less free as in freedom in the first place. Perhaps you could explain that?

>if evil exists in the world no matter what you like, why not use that evil to accomplish something good
wtf i really hate stallman now

I like how I can see someone throwing a tantrum because they were arguing earlier, just by scrolling the thread.

GPL is a virus license

That's the point, it wouldn't.

>the ends justify the means

Whatever, retard. The whole premise is stupid to begin with.
>If you oppose copyright so much, why not just let yourself get ruthlessly fucked over by it instead of manipulating the system to fit your ends?

What do you call it or say when you know a method of means is bad, do it with intentions of getting to a good/better end, but never deny that the means were bad or justify them?
Is it like a "revolution"?
For example a response from someone saying
>we knew it was bad but we wanted to get to the means because we thought it would be better for everyone
Is that end part in itself a justification or is it just honesty?

>So when we reach post-scarcity,
>when

that's really ironic image posting since the commies murdered all the artists, as they were deemed 'useless' to society

11/10 nice reddit post

Is Richard Stalin a Bernout?

I hope it's tomorrow.

The GPL is merely a way to counteract the law which clearly favors "intellectual property". If copyright did not exist, neither would its opposing force - copyleft, and everything would equally be public domain - why would you need a license to keep modifications freely modifiable if they were freely modifiable by default?

>if they were freely modifiable by default?
That's literally not what would happen though. What would stop me from taking your open code and closing it?

What would stop me from taking your closed code and reverse-engineering the changes to integrate them back into my product?

>support a candidate that supports fixing prices of drugs to prevent exploitation of patients

Well you can't really close someone else's code, only your fork of it. Your fork would have to be pretty good to actually attract any users in that case, I'd think.