Urist

Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is theft.

This is the point I wanted to contend and is the main premise I disagree with. In my opinion, nothing was taken, at most borrowed, by the author of the book.

But he published a freaking book!

Yes, is it not great?

Do you think Zack Snyder should get to put out a Rebel Moon and call it “Rebel Moon: A Star Wars Story” without getting permission or paying for licensing?

In my dreams, yes.

Is this the reality this sub believes we live in? If you write a novel and I read it and soon start writing better more successful stories based explicitly on your characters without crediting you or sharing in my profit, how would you feel?

I would be fucking thrilled to be honest. If someone not only cited my research, but actually improved on it I would schedule a meeting to talk with them ASAP.

Should your work be public domain? Is that what you (collective) feel is best for “the public”?

YES. Everything that is published should be publicly available as default. I understand that this would require another method for financing those that actually make new stuff, but that is something that is sorely needed anyway. What usually happens is that the actual creators are left with pennies while legal entities own IP almost indefinitely.

Also, I want to add that had IP laws always been what they are today, much great work from the past (that is now enjoying protection by copyright) could not have existed. I also ask how say the dwarves in Tolkien's tales could be copyrighted when they are based on stories about dwarves from Norse mythology?

TL;DR there was a special time when all work got copyrighted into oblivion. It has to end so that humanity can create more cool new stuff just as we did back then.

No there is new work that has been done that you are reducing to "piracy". As if intellectual and creative processes ever could take place in a vacuum. The only contradiction is that copyright laws as a concept do nothing than stifle innovation and progress. If you do not like how anyone can profit from other people's ideas you should maybe rethink your stance on monetisation schemes in general instead.

I think the ethical part may have to do with the following from Wikipedia on commerce:

The diversity in the distribution of natural resources, differences of human needs and wants, and division of labour along with comparative advantage are the principal factors that give rise to commercial exchanges.

I do not see how the commercial part is necessary for the distribution of goods though and recognize it as the main culprit in making such a system unethical. I.e., supplying needs is good and necessary, however a commercial platform is not.

But the absence of classes and states surely is the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat /s

Wherever there is a need there is potential for exploitation by greed. Of course capitalists without a leash are going to wreak havoc on everything.

Sure, but I vote for the party and people that aligns itself with my interests, so indirectly I do. I have also thought about attending some local meetings to talk with those representing me about some issues.

I recognise that you may not feel represented well within your system. That does not imply a failure of representation as a system of government, but could speak to the implementation of yours.

Representation is not anti-democratic

Follow the pirate code and share the spoils, i.e. be seeding.

Your appreciation of those things lead me to believe you are indeed quite a cool person yourself. We should definitely make a club! For real though, your comment made my day. Thanks :)

I have!

Topology allows for sets to be both open and closed or neither.

This reminded me of a broken promise of mine from long ago.