Search results for query: *

Again, you confuse using concepts from a legal system with a legalistic argument. This is not a legal argument, because quite plainly that's not how it works in law. In US law, there is no contract made. Copyright infringement doesn't work through contract law/breach of contract, it's its own...

No, they are moral ones? Seriously, how can you not pick this up? Me saying "it's usually wrong to kill people, but it's okay in self defense" isn't a legal argument despite it being reflected (or not) in a law. I'm using concepts to talk about what is moral. Some of those concepts might have...

Wow. You are still arguing irrelevancies. The thing I'm talking about the legal definition of is the c in a circle and what precisely it stands for. You complained that I used it when talking about morality: All I cared about regarding the c was that it was a common standard. I couldn't care...

Yeah. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. The reason why it's legally defined is simply a formalization of a standard, one that could be done without legality, but currently is. And again, you are trying to find a gotcha that doesn't exist, and one I've already addressed. Seriously, can you...

You are talking about legality. This is a conversation about morality. My initial statement was along the lines of "I don't know if what the AI is doing is legal, but it shouldn't be, because it's breaking copyright in principle." No. They used the thing when they had the option to not use it...

I heard about this thru Lehto's Law! It was an interesting case. Again, maybe you disagree with the reason that is commonly given (owning the idea). But I'd say that the contract method bypasses this: It's implicit contract is "don't replicate this idea, and if you resell it (using my...

See, I very much disagree with this. Implicit contracts differ from the social contract in that there clearly is agreement with them, and that agreement must be proven. One can't just argue 'an implicit contract exists'. You have to show that the implicit contract was agreed to. Say you buy a...

Okay, then think of a copyright as an unlimited single purchase lease of an item, conditioned by not copying the item. I get you come to a similarish Really, though, what happens is X is yours, but you yourself permanently agreed (via implicit contract through the well understood copyright...

They used the thing. That's the agreement. Though I'll give you that literally was hyperbole. It does literally originate from contracts though. When you are sold a book, you don't outright state you are not going to copy the book and resell those copies: that you don't have this right is an...

No, you aren't granting people the right to copy it and store it off line though, unless you say you are. For just one example of this: Fanfiction.net tries (and fails) to make its text non-grabbable for copying/pasting, an indication they don't license people using it. You can put something on...

If you force someone to work for you, what has been stolen? Labor. Tbc, the labor theory of value is bunk. But that doesn't mean labor is valueless, just that the amount of labor required for a good is not necessarily the sole or main indicator of its value. The value of labor comes instead...

Thanks for telling me, I just moved it. No, there very much is. A copyright originates from what it says, a right to copy. When a work was given out, it was given out with conditions. Those conditions could be arbitrary, but those were the conditions it was given out under. Usually, that...

Split discussion from here: https://www.the-sietch.com/index.php?threads/five-minutes-of-hate-news.1054/page-360#post-408242 Sorry about the sudden shift in location, I'm trying not to derail the previous thread further. So just because someone posts something online doesn't necessarily mean...