Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You are simply not making much sense, and to compare physical slavery with copyright is ridiculous.



> and to compare physical slavery with copyright is ridiculous.

On the contrary, you cannot mathematically distinguish (c)opywrong laws as anything but a kind of slavery.

Define a person A as a slave to person B if person B has legal control over person A at all times.

Now imagine person A is hanging out with Person C. With (c)opywrong laws, Person B has legal control over a subset of person A's behavior in this scenario (they are forbidden from sharing certain files with Person C by Person B). Hence, Person A is a partial slave to Person B.

It is not metaphor, it is literally a subset of the same thing. Intellectual Slavery is just slavery from many masters.


It made perfect sense. Laws change all the time... in some cases they're invalidated by the court.


> Laws change all the time

That still doesn't make breck right.

If I say "slave ownership can't be signed over by a ToS change" that's a true statement, despite me being anti-slavery.

Copyright could be many things. But that doesn't change what copyright is right now. And even if they are offensive, they don't "void logic".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: