You can "steal" intellectual "property"

>have an exam
>can't answer anything because answers are protected by copyright

>I can have you arrested for thinking thoughts that belong to me?
It's literally called "copyright". As in the right to make copies. It's a limit on who can duplicate and distribute works, not a fucking thought ban.

You can't own a thought or idea and copyright law already exists providing protection well beyond what is reasonable in most countries for the right to profit from your original ideas.
There's no such thing as intellectual property. It's a weasel term meant to conflate copyright with physical property so you'll be less inclined to resist the erosion of your liberty. More specifically its purpose is do away with the fragile charade of extending copyright terms as they reach ever more ridiculous lengths and finally grant giant copyright holders perpetual protection for works that should have entered the public domain decades ago.

wrong, IP law protects ideas and not works, people who hold an IP can sue you if they think your idea is too similar to theirs, that's what happens to disney ripoff movies

>t. memecap

>IP law protects ideas and not works
baylor.edu/copyright/index.php?id=56543
Do a quick page search and see how many times the word "works" pops up. This is literally what copyright is for.

No, you cannot copyright an idea. You can copyright a book in which the idea is written, you can copyright an object or device or image. The purpose of copyright is to ensure that you are rewarded for being the inventor of original works. If you want to steal someone else's work go ahead, nobody is stopping you, but there are penalties in law for doing so if you are caught doing it. Maybe if ever you get a job that doesnt involve flipping burgers you will understand

we are thrilled to announce we have copyrighted the alphabet©
for every letter you use in written text anywhere you will be deducted a variable amount depending on my whims

no need to pay manually, our ai has access to all your accounts and services.
in the unfortunate case where you do not have the funds, a repo man will visit you and work out a solution.
no reason to run, the brain chip™ will accurately and frequently report your location to our global proccesing ai system
cooperation would be appreciated, good day

Attached: 1541901806798.jpg (329x317, 24K)

If I have seen further itis bystanding on the shoulders of Giants. - newton

you are 100% legit faggot

can we talk about maki

>nobody is stopping you
>EXCEPT muh penalties
>Maybe if ever you get a job that doesnt involve flipping burgers you will understand
>muh ideas
Kill yourself, you Orwellian cuck.

>The purpose of copyright is to ensure that you are rewarded for being the inventor of original works.
so is it stealing or "not rewarding"? other property laws aren't about "ensuring that you are rewarded", they're about the fact that if somebody takes your property you are no longer able to use that property. justifications for intellectual property always seem to boil down to "because i want to make money".

do not steal

Attached: 1564823895454-min-min-min-min-min.jpg (640x480, 13K)

>Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”

This. Intellectual property ONLY makes sense if you're treating it as something you haven't shared yet, as in a trade secret (unreleased information of any kind). This way if someone literally breaks into your machine to steal data from you, only then should you be protected by IP laws. Or, in future, if someone reads your mind.
If you share anything yourself (willingly), then it should be considered public domain by default. So, for example, Windows is in public domain because it's given out. But it's source code isn't.
Nobody is forcing you to share your source code. Nobody is forcing you to remove DRM. Nobody is stopping you from making "information as a service" as in, stream your video/game/OS to paying customers. Nobody stops you from earning money by requesting initial backing (kickstarter/indiegogo), getting money from your fanbase (donations/patreon) or just charging per download initially.
Copyright cucks refuse to admit they're just money begging thieves who are sucking government cock just to that the gov't will babysit them so they can steal as much money as possible, at the cost of human rights.

microsoft should have to share the source code

why?
you can't compel microsoft to share their code or compel bakers to make fag cakes.

because employees are already incentivized to leak the code
>fag cakes
all anons should be forced to make these just because it would be hilarious

virtual property seems kinda iffy when you think about it, if it was a first class citizen like physical, then we should have the undeniable legal right to trade our digital store purchases with each other.

No. Corporations shouldn't have any more or less obligations than people.

your statement doesn't contradict mine

Having to share the source code is essentially removing the right to privacy. So no, fuck off with your socialist ideas. Nobody should be forced to share secrets.

>socialist
nope
if they want to keep secrets then they can keep the binaries to themselves too

With that post you have at least proven that you are very stupid. Enjoy!

This, plus we cannot earn money from Zelda. The guy who made it up can.

no one cares bootlicker

Remove this, my dad is a lawyer

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (480x480, 30K)

>The purpose of copyright is to ensure that you are rewarded for being the inventor of original works
No the purpose is to benefit corporations by allowing them to buy out competition, since they're the only ones that can buy IPs

ya'll claim that you can't just copyright ideas.

But you can copyright songs, even super basic everyday songs like Happy Birthday. You don't even need to produce "a work" to get prosecuted.
This is why restaurants often have their own version of a birthday song that isn't universally known, because they can get sued for singing happy birthday out loud in their business without paying royalties.

So in that case simply speaking the idea out loud is a copyright violation. That comes frighteningly close to thought enforcement imho.

>nobody is stopping you
>but there are penalties in law for doing so
Lmao

Nobody is forcing you to use closed source software.

You can't (as in shouldn't be able to) copyright ideas, including songs.

Then how are you supposed to profit from the art you create? If reproduction and distribution of a song is legal, almost nobody has any reason to pay you for it.

the specific pattern of bits (101000110010100001010101) is now claimed by me
if anyone uses it or has it saved on their machine in any way im gonna be real angry

you don't
art is a luxury and an expense, it doesn't generate capital

>closed source software
that doesn't exist, the phrase you're looking for is "intentionally crippled and restricted software"

The worst part about that is its not even the melody thats copywrit. Its just the words.

And the song itself requires you to adlib the lyrics by inserting somebody's name.
Its a literal a copyright on the phrase "happy birthday to you" spoken out loud

I have no reason to pay you for it anyways because the law is so trivial to ignore and so rarely enforced

>Maki, and why she is so perfect, the thread.

Attached: 6v62vf7dj55x.png (1003x1416, 787K)

her voice is so hot

Attached: 1550540968946.png (387x720, 528K)

be careful maki-friends, the powers that be for some reason sometimes don't think she's Jow Forums related

Attached: 1461189778228.png (336x430, 143K)

tomato girls are ALWAYS Jow Forums related

Attached: 997CD9047AC4402DB688F43170CC9FBD.png (715x716, 775K)