HenchmanNumber3

@HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If I cut up pictures to arrange things in a way that when traced over create something "new," is that a copyright violation?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  How would one “steal a kiss” if it was a finite resource.

  Stealing a kiss is another poetic use of the term.

  Also while stealing is not always “punishable by law”, it can still be classified as wrongdoing.

  Depends on the context.

  As an artist I find all forms of plagiarism to equate to stealing

  As an artist, I don’t. Plagiarism is about failure to cite sources and copying content while claiming it’s yours. That’s not even usually a legal issue. It’s an academic issue. And it’s not necessarily immoral either. You can be accused of plagiarizing yourself by not citing that you had previously written some of the content in a previous work. That’s not even close to stealing, technically, legally, or morally.

  Plagiarism is also very different from copyright violation.

  and while they won’t land you behind bars, they may get you a status of persona non grata with other creatives.

  And it might get you fame and fortune and acclaim from others. Depends on the context.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨If I cut up pictures to arrange things in a way that when traced over create something "new," is that a copyright violation?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  that’s stealing

  It’s important to note that copyright violation is never stealing or theft. That’s a poetic term copyright maximalists use to morally equate two disparate concepts. Stealing and theft involves taking something that is finite and rivalrous and thus depriving the owner of it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Was the supreme court wrong to assess that because america is a capitalist society money is a form of speach?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  The law would work differently if they, as designated interpreters of the law, interpreted the law differently. If they said you can’t have infinite dark money running campaigns because that violates the rights of poor voters, then things would be very different. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have made significant changes to how the law is interpreted and enforced. Congress also seems to very rarely pass laws to counter SCOTUS decisions. So yeah, if we had fewer federalists and conservatives on SCOTUS and more progressives, I think it would have been decided differently, as well as other significant cases.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Was the supreme court wrong to assess that because america is a capitalist society money is a form of speach?⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If money is free speech then anyone with more money gets more free speech, which isn’t how rights work. You have the same freedoms and limitations to those freedoms that I do, regardless of who has more money. We’re supposed to be equal under the law, but SCOTUS thinks $ome are more equal than others.