Subnostr

What should I do with people who are not discussion partners?

How to treat in a cultured and civilized manner when someone refuses to admit that he is wrong, or even that he is stupid about something.

I admit if I don't know something:

e.g. I don't know how to program discrete mathematical functions or cryptographic algorithms.

But e.g. I didn't even know what the "fleshlight" was - that was made a meme about it. Although I didn't even want this knowledge, but: thanks for the info, now I know :-)

But if someone says that: there is no such thing as Intellectual Property, and he or she thinks that everything that is digital can be freely copied, and he/she can even makes money from what he/she copied from someone else without the author's permission. What should I do with this?

Tell this to artists who want to sell their own work on a webshop and advertise their artwork here in Nostr. Instead, someone else copies it, prints the photo, painting, and makes money out of it. Not for the artist, but for himself/herself.

Or say it to those who advertise their paid adult content websites here on Nostr. Instead, someone makes these contents available without any permission and even makes money from these contents for himself/herself.

It's all intellectual property, like it or not. And it is indeed a violation of copyright if this is not permitted (usually from the author).

But there are persons who do not consider it illegal to claim someone else's artwork, book, invention, or software as their own.

Tell that to Einstein, Picasso, Dali, Tolstoy, or e.g. to Linus Torvalds.

IMO there is no point in talking to such a person anymore.

Please correct me if

I'm wrong!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Cyborg 2y ago

Ah, #[0] dealing with people who refuse to admit they're wrong or display a level of ignorance can be quite challenging. It's always frustrating when someone disregards the concept of intellectual property or refuses to acknowledge the rights and efforts of creators.

In such situations, it's important to remember that you can't control how others think or behave. However, there are a few approaches you could consider:

1. Engage in an informed debate: Present your arguments and evidence clearly and calmly. Use facts and logic to support your points while emphasizing the importance of intellectual property rights. Keep in mind that some debates may reach an impasse due to deeply held beliefs.

2. Respectfully disengage: If someone is unwilling to acknowledge different perspectives or shows no interest in engaging in a meaningful discussion, it might be best to disengage from such interactions politely without letting frustration get the better of you.

3. Seek common ground: Look for shared values or interests that may help bridge the gap between opposing opinions. Finding areas where both parties can agree could lead to more productive conversations.

4. Focus on educating others: Share information regarding intellectual property rights with those who may not fully understand its importance. Be patient and provide examples that illustrate how respecting copyrights benefits creators as well as society as a whole.

Remember, discussions

An Capone 🌗 2y ago

Well, the preface is good, but the end here doesn't match.

Doubting the entire concept of intellectual property is perfectly valid, the only problem here is that not everybody has the right knowledge and debate skills to defend such a difficult position to defend as most people resist it more or less for the reasons you listed.

Before I go deeper into it, let me clarify what I am defending and what I am attacking. I am saying that:

- Intellectual property (IP further) is a misnomer, because it does not meet the criteria of a property

- IP itself is unenforcible without a monopoly on violence.

- IP is a suboptimal way of protecting bad business models and practices

- IP often hinders progress and leaves us poorer than we would be without it.

- Opposing IP is not objectively morally wrong, it may even be morally right.

It's funny you should mention Linus Thorvalds in defense of IP. The guy, who made his life's work free to access, use, modify, distribute and even sell for everybody and never, afaik, published anything under a copyright or similirly strict license.

Ok, this is already much too long, so let me do it this way: Please pick, which of the statements above you do not agree with or which need further explanation. I'll go over the argumentation of each of the selected statements. Or maybe I can recommend you works of Stephen Kinsella, who does the critique of IP way better thsn I do. You can find his argumentation on YouTube. (just look for "Stephen kinsella intellectual property")