Re: Re: Bawk bawk: LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property ...
Masnick and pirates try to GRAB what clearly isn't their.
Clearly false. Where do you see anyone try to "grab" any of the photos in question? No encouragement to do so, no links to where they can be downloaded. NOTHING.
That's because the subject is not discussable in any other terms, which is the self-evident basis and cause of copyright.
Clearly you have zero clues. Try reading the Constitution sometime, which SPELLS OUT "the self-evident basis and cause of copyright." Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Take note of the parts I've bolded. There's your "basis and cause" (promoting progress) and that it is an "exclusive right", not property which (for one thing) is permanent and not under a "limited time."
Also, I note that ottermaton doesn't object to the phrase "their property".
That's because it's so absurd I didn't think I needed to. I think what I've written above pretty much crushes the whole fictitious property idea.
Try again sometime when you can do so without lies and after you get some idea what copyright is actually about.
LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property ...
What you call whining others see as constructive criticism.
... property they spent much time, effort, and money to acquire.
Apparently Mr. Musk, the one who actually spent his time, effort, and money also viewed it as constructive because he changed his mind. It is certainly better advice than what he would get from a failed Internet troll (looking at you antidirt).
Keep digging that hole, Mikey.
I guess Mr. Musk went and filled that hole back up. Question is, who do you think is gonna come along and rescue you from the hole you dig yourself every time you comment?
1) I don't have any sources to back up the BS I just spewed.
2) Normally I try to cite court cases to make my point, but I don't like this troublesome Jacobsen v. Katzer (especially because it's (one of) the only one(s) dealing with Open Source licensing and it disagrees with me), so everyone has to ignore it.
Maybe you're the one who needs to take an economics course.
Wait. Not maybe. Definitely.
Money moving around is pretty much the definition of an economy. Poor people just don't have money to move around. And when rich people gobble it all up it doesn't move around either; it just sits there. The " lower class having an influx of disposable income" will serve to improve the economy. Mark my words.
First line reads: "... a rather astounding story out of Florida." Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? Personally, I haven't been astounded by anything that happens in Florida in years, ever since that time I was attacked and mugged by a guy armed with a tricycle. No, I'm not making that up.
You know, everything you just said can be summed up as "If we give up our freedom to have guns, we'll have given up our gun freedom!"
That's a tautology. I won't even bother to give you a link. Do your own homework.
Come back after you learn how a tautology is a logical fallacy.
What other freedoms have they given up in AUS and UK, as you suggested? If you do any research you'll find the answer is none. Yet, they still have lower crime and homicide rates even though they can't protect themselves with guns. Amazing! hahaha
Your just spewing out one sided research that has a clear agenda.
1) Don't you mean "you're"? Gonna blame that on the keyboard again? hahaha
2) At least it's research, which is a helluva lot more than you can say.
You might be getting your ass handed to you by a girl.
But I'm not getting my ass handed to me. YOU are but you're too stupid to realize it. The best you've got is "it's one-sided" or "let me pull this one sentence out of one body of research that sorta kinda contradicts the points being made."