|
Inhibitor -> RE: Ritual D/s (7/2/2007 12:48:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: julietsierra
It's been truncated. I'd say that makes the information regarding copyright law pretty acceptable - whether it was said in the form of shoulds or musts or perhaps you should think abouts...
It's been truncated because a moderator was alerted to the post. Whether it would have been, naturally, is speculative, but regardless. The reasoning that a rule (or the promulgation of one) is acceptable on the sole merit that it is enforced is frightening.
quote:
Suggesting that someone rephrase their words simply because you in all your vested interest as an individual don't like how he said it is kind of moot. They're his words to use as he pleases.
I suggested he rephrase based on the comment that he wanted to pass along information. Whether I liked how he said it was never stated. Whether he understands what he's saying, is apparently an issue. They're his words to use, as mine are mine, and yours are yours. I see no conflict.
quote:
And when something's been copyrighted - whether you like it or not, whether you think it's appropriate or not, whether you think it's silly or not, no one else has the legal right to use those words as their own. Since this seems a difficult concept for you, I'll give you the analogy I once used.
Mkay. You'd note, if you'd seen the pre-truncated post, that the article was not represented as having been written by anyone other than the original author. The copyright data was included. The issue indeed is whether someone has the *legal* right to write something that was written by someone else previously. However, a relevant action did not occur in this thread, similar to how Rover is neither a moderator nor a magistrate.
quote:
"Honey, when you use someone else's words without giving them credit it's like someone walked into your garage and took your bike because afterall, they saw you riding it and it seemed just right for them, so they figured you wouldn't mind if they took yours to use for a while."
Unlike physical objects, the same word can exist in more than one place. The analogy would be apt if someone saw a bike and went home to replicate it, and showed up at the playground the next day with his copycat. You'll note this isn't stealing. Whether or not kid throws a hissy fit and cries.
Bikes are purchased, and can be owned by people. Thoughts and words are intangible mechanisms of communication, and while it's nice if an originator is credited, it is ludicrous to presume that if I say cupcakes are tasty first, I own the idea, and the phrase, and someone is being at all nefarious if they say it, too. Passing a book off as one's own, when it's not, is one thing. Telling someone they're bad because they copy pasted an article, even going so far as to include the author's name and the original text in its entirety, is another. If the site doesn't like it, the site moderators can control it. Caput.
quote:
He learned. For some reason, whether he's 10 or 23, it doesn't seem such a silly law to him. And since you like to talk in niceties.. perhaps you should rethink your stance on intellectual theft. If the same idea occurs to you as has been expressed by someone else, I'd think you'd have the ability to express your own thoughts without stealing someone else's way of saying it.
Most likely, he doesn't think it's such a silly law because he's been told how he should think about it by esteemed members of upstanding society like yourself. Seriously.
The very crux is that copyright legislation has more to do with protecting ego and marketing than "property." As exemplified in how no one claimed anyone else's ideas or words as their own, in this thread, and yet somehow Teh Lawz must stroked.
quote:
juliet
Nice to meet you.
|
|
|
|
