96VXb9ktTjFnRi

I'm not in favor of wishing death upon anyone. I find it all rather distasteful, but Bobby Vylans views seem in line with US death penalty practices, don't they? Death to those who commit the terriblest of crimes.

Nor should you, no one does. And you're not alone with this question, seeing the upvotes. So it presumably helped others.

Refugees are a group of people that's very heterogenous. They don't have one common way of treating Denmark. Except for the 'asking Denmark for asylum' of course.

Denmark does treat refugees a certain way, if by Denmark we mean their government, and not Danes in general. The government has certain policies which define their treatment. Basically they're trying to win the race to the bottom: 'treating them worse than other countries do', hoping refugees will go to other countries instead. It's a shortsighted tactic because now we here in the Netherlands as well as in other countries, are joining the race to the bottom. Which means collectively we are losing our humanity, while still largely getting equal amounts of refugees at our borders. Unless of course you're willing treat people so poorly, that even a warzone is more acceptable. But what in the world are we defending if we are willing to lose all human decency over it?

It also would still allow parodies and satire, so some of the standard doctrine of fair use would still apply.

one advantage - if someone bigger than you steals your idea you can take them to court

I'm against the notion that ideas can be stolen. I mean, you can keep an idea to yourself, choose not to share it, but if you share your ideas in whatever shape or form, it's there for others to do with as they please. Or atleast, despite that not being the case, in my opinion, that's how it should be. You can of course disagree, but in my view the idea that the first one to come up with an idea, can plant a flag on it and then own this idea, is not helpful. Rather it is limiting, it is holding us back. I think humanity as a whole functions better if we can use eachothers ideas as we please. Humanity functions by copying eachothers behavior and ideas and occasionally improving on them. Like with FOSS, if an idea is improperly executed or can be improved upon, even if just according to some, it is helpful, that the idea can be forked.

Like I said, I prefer to focus on patent law first, rather than copyright law. But fundamentally I think there is no difference.

Yes, Intellectual Property must go down. People often think positively of copyright, thinking that no one would support artists if they weren't forced to, and that artists couldn't possibly make a living if it weren't for copyright. I think we are rich enough that if we were to share it properly we could give everyone, not just the talented, time and resources to create art. And I think the talented would still gain advantages by being talented, people want to support artists that mean a lot to them. But to be fair, limiting or removing copyright is not only not that popular of an idea, it's also the least of our worries, cause it mostly concerns entertainment purposes.

Patent laws is where we need to act. To give a clear example: patent laws mean that excessive amounts of money goes to pharmaceutical companies, This is always defended by saying that they in turn will invest this money into research. The problem is

• They spend far more money on marketing than on R&D, which effectively means that you're often not getting the best medicine, it means your getting the best marketed medicine.

• When money does go to R&D, the research that's being done, is limited to that which benefits the pharmaceutical company. This is an unacceptable limitation. For example it is not in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to to cure disease, it's far more commercially attractive to make it a manageable chronic disease, where you rely on medication for the rest of your life.

• Companies will not share their knowledge. For a company these are trade-secrets that could benefit their competition and if you have to compete obviously sharing knowledge is not in your best interest. But if you want to help humanity forward, obviously you should.

• Drug prices are often excessively high, in part because of the previously mentioned marketing costs that you pay for.

Neither of these problems would exist if R&D was funded by governments and charity. And the pharmaceutical is just one industry that's taken as an example. The way that intellectual property is holding humanity back can not be overstated. Basically we need to go free and open source on IP,

I feel like there is momentum in Europe to switch to FOSS. Europe knows that the US cannot be trusted any longer. And this cannot be undone. Europe is striving for independence. Huge amounts of money are being spent on military sovereignty right now. All of us here on Lemmy know digital sovereignty is equally important. Recently an ICC prosecutor was cut off from his MS account because the US doesn't like the Netanyahu arrest-warrant. These things don't go unnoticed. It shows that technological dependance is not innocent, it can and will be used against us.

We need to use this momentum. Get involved, mail your representatives (municipal, provincial, national, federal), get petitions running, mail newspapers, go to political party conventions and get this on the agenda. It won't fix itself. This problem is somewhat abstract and the solutions are just slightly too complicated for the general public. Most people don't know what FOSS means. If we want this to change, those who see it and understand what needs to be done, need to get in to action.

If we were to rank people on the basis of how far they are on the path towards enlightenment, without a doubt Jeff Bezos would have all the world in front of him.

alright we're talking about boomers then. I looked beyond boomers as well.

Aside from the pricking scandal, what a fantastic idea.

On "Fête de la Musique" people are urged to play music outside.

Here my country is stuck with Christian holidays that noone remembers the meaning of.

The US & UK supported the 1953 coup d'état to secure their oil interest. "Economically, American firms gained considerable control over Iranian oil production, with US companies taking around 40 percent of the profits" The Islamic Revolution is a response to this. If the west wasn't as imperalist, who knows what could've become of Iran.

But to be honest, there's no way western forces will take over control in Iran. Though it's at a technological disadvantage, their military is huge, as well as their population of more than 90 million. Then there's Pakistan that has threatened to get involved if the US does. Then there's Irans proxies, though they're in a relatively weakened state for the moment. But Iran has allied millitias all across the region. Then there's China depending on the Iranian oil. I mean, if you want to force your way into World War 3 this seems like a brilliant idea.