RE: Why Ginabot rocks and catching another plagiarist
Ownership is not an Opinion. Ownership is a Right
With all due respect, you're still misunderstanding the different kinds of ownership.
There is an "ownership as an opinion" and an "ownership as a right". One is a thought, the other is a social convention.
Did I say that Ownership doesn't exist or does exist?
It doesn't make sense that Ideas or Content can be Owned.
You did say that. Ideas are the abstract, content is the concrete. So basically you said that nothing can be owned. I can own anything I want. I can own your head if my distorted mind thinks I somehow own it. That will be my opinion. You will disagree, of course, and society will disagree, and, legally, I will not own it, but I will in my mind.
Someone makes a sculpture. Someone steals that sculpture.
Someone makes a sculpture, someone steals the IDEA of the sculpture. The sculpture is concrete, yet it has abstract values such as its shape and what it represents. Someone makes another sculpture with the same shape and, by extension, same representation.
The first sculptor owns his sculpture because he thinks he does and society around him accepts the fact as such. The second sculptor owns his sculpture because it is his opinion, and society agrees that he owns his sculpture but society disagrees that he owns AUTHORSHIP of the sculpture.
There is no "actual ownership". There is absolute and relative ownership, and under relative ownership there is ownership as an opinion (effective only in the thinker's mind) and ownership as a right (effective in a community such as human society).
that's why you're on an OPEN SOURCE, completely transparent platform, because if you COPY the work AND claim it as your own, ain't nobody going to get "hurt" feelings or feel bad
- Open Source means that you can see it, not that you can copy it or alter it. You have no legal right to attribute to yourself a copy of a piece of open source
- Regardless of rights, can still feel bad when things happen (police can legally send someone to jail, but the person being sent to jail will feel bad about it)
- But you still have no legal right, regardless of open source status, to copy any work and claim it as your own. You can still be brought down by all legal means for plagiarism insofar as there are laws that regulate such actions around you.
I either SAID it, or I "basically said it". Stop Interpreting my words and making confusion where there is none. I said that it DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, it's ILLOGICAL, to OWN or POSSES ideas. I didn't say that Ownership Doesn't Exist because I said that Intelectual Ownership Doesn't Make Sense, and I didn't basically say it simply because you assert a construed connection and interpret it in some kind of absolute.
Actually, there is ACTUAL Ownership and ACTUAL Authorship, and it makes no difference if it's ABSOLUTE, or INFINITE, or IMMUTABLE, and even dogs recognize it, not Human society.
Open Source means that you can copy it AND alter it. It doesn't mean you can claim it, but nobody is getting BROUGHT DOWN for plagiarizing open source, they won't have money to bring anyone down.