infinite love Ⴟ @trwnh@mastodon.social

@Gargron @selea Columns. And yes, the columns should be explained, many people who have never used TweetDeck.

@theartguy False dichotomy. It is not enough to only abolish IP without abolishing all private property. No one should have to "earn" a living, artist or otherwise.

And I certainly don't seem to understand how any revolution that abolishes capital (including private property, including intellectual property) would leave wealth intact.

@metapianycist @theartguy That's mischaracterizing it. My argument is that litigation simply is not viable or sustainable for the majority of independent artists, photographers or otherwise. IP is *already* the uneven playing field that you are worried will arise by abolishing IP. Which indie photogs can afford lawyers? Do you really want to leave justice in the hands of whoever can afford better lawyers?

@theartguy @metapianycist Which corporations currently fear the poor? Which poor artists can actually afford litigation?

@theartguy really misplacing your ire and sarcasm there, maybe? intellectual property is invalid because all private property is invalid. it makes no sense to use the "starving artist" as a human shield of sorts to prop up a contradiction. and even then, any money made will be from cultivating relationships and patronage, not from litigating or defending IP, which is actually a huge *loss* of time and money for the "little guys". "little guys" don't benefit from IP.

@ElusiveConfection @Los_Ingobernables_De_Mastodon @pbandkate alt-right furries exist, sadly

the most ominous thing i've ever heard: in response to an offhand comment trying to deter a salesman about coming back in 2-3 months, he just straight deadpanned to us "in 2-3 months none of us will remember this"