You can morally plagiarize by violating an artist’s authorship of their work, regardless of what the law says. Institutions only capture the sin and fold it into part of the system, as even when protected by law, passing off another’s work as your own is a shitty thing.
This is part of what’s wrong with IP law btw. According to law, large entertainment pieces like movies or games are not owned by any of the people who worked on them, but by those who donated capital to the project. Capital in, IP out.
Yup. The only justification for this limit is capitalism, where people can obtain money by selling culture that goes beyond the material. If one didn’t need to produce value to survive or couldn’t earn a ton of wealth and power through the sale of culture, the limit would be obsolete.
You can morally plagiarize by violating an artist’s authorship of their work, regardless of what the law says. Institutions only capture the sin and fold it into part of the system, as even when protected by law, passing off another’s work as your own is a shitty thing.
This is part of what’s wrong with IP law btw. According to law, large entertainment pieces like movies or games are not owned by any of the people who worked on them, but by those who donated capital to the project. Capital in, IP out.
What’s wrong with IP laws is that they lock away human culture from social use.
There should be no limit on how you or I use a concept or an idea.
Yup. The only justification for this limit is capitalism, where people can obtain money by selling culture that goes beyond the material. If one didn’t need to produce value to survive or couldn’t earn a ton of wealth and power through the sale of culture, the limit would be obsolete.