Oh interesting never heard of that before. I still remember getting marked off for that kind of thing when they were teaching us Roman numerals in grade school.
trebuchet
joined 1 year ago
Strangely doesn't know the Roman number IV, though. Still an awesome picture nonetheless.
So IP law for individuals = bad, but IP law for corporations = good is the general argument here?
Is there a principled basis for this argument?
It seems like a lot of art like musicians or novelists rely almost entirely on earnings from selling their works to individuals. Wouldn't a legal regime like you're advocating basically make producing art for real people a lot less lucrative comparatively and drive those artists into making corporate art and marketing materials?
So what you're saying is this episode has caused you/others here on /c/piracy to rethink your prior beliefs, and now you see some value in the copyright legal regime?
Conveniently, these moral arguments that are freed from the confines of discrete logic also allow people on /c/piracy to ignore the rules when justifying their own piracy, and still condemn others they already happen to dislike when they do piracy.
All the giant real estate investments companies have made is now coming due and they cant fill up their buildings fast enough to get those tax breaks
What are these tax breaks for filling up buildings?
In this case, it seems he was boldly talking about assassinating Democratic congressman in a public restaurant and someone recorded him.
Who even uses that definition outside of super niche communities?
So a good person who behaves like Christ but grows up in a rural village and has never heard of Christianity or read the Bible would be a Christian under this definition?
Wow! More conservative projection accusing others of something they themselves are doing. Weird!!
Modern?
Has it increased in some way over time? I think men not wanting to wear condoms because of how they feel is a tale as old as the condom itself.
Your perspective seems to be to ignore the very existence of anti trust rules that stand for the proposition that even if the customer knows what they're getting in a free market capitalist transaction it can be illegal.
Can't your justification of Apple be used for every anti trust case? "AT&T’s customers bought their service knowing alternative rotary dial telephones manufactured by 3rd parties are not available."