RE: Let's talk about: Copyright
Do you understand what Monopolizing ideas means? It's the definition of copyright, it's how copyright functions more precisely. So when you judge something dumb without even understanding the basic function of copyrights in clear terms:
Art is monopolized, the act of Permitting only some people or only some uses of ideas is monopolization itself, it's the very act itself that you deny is not happening.
It's as valid as any other errenous opinion or belief.
If you create art that depicts an eagle with the head of an elephant, copyrighting means that anyone who make something that can be considered COPYING the idea, be it in the same medium or an entirely different one all together, you can attempt to subjugate their real property rights.
A rant btw is your logical inconsistent judgmeent of what you think I am doing, which is not "crying" anymore than it is "ranting", but making Salient points and speaking in a logical consistency with clarity and specificity and to avail understanding, there was nothing that could be construed as emotional response or incitement in my arguments.
Sir, are you on drugs or are you this when sober? You are ranting nothing related to the point. You are making no point.
This might seem like I'm "logically inconsistent" but it's difficult to seem logically consistent when you are logically inconsistent. You might think there is a logic, but it sure is special. If it's there.
If you can demonstrate that I am logically inconsistent I will give you my account.
You are. I have not been talking about monopolizing ideas, but you are claiming I have done.
We can discuss how you will hand over your password to me later on.
It's actually the very essence of saying that only you can make money from an idea. That's why it's called a Government-Granted-Monopoly. We have been talking about the same exact thing from the beginning, you only sought to deny it without substance, then re-asserted it in the same comment, as the quote above demonstrates. Logic you idiot.
Maybe if you could have explained How and Why we were talking about two different things and how and why it makes my arguments logically inconsistent as if my arguments somehow are predicated on your misunderstanding, confusion: ie demonstrate, instead of assert nonsense or plain lies, as if the conversation EVER changed from talking about monopolizing ideas, as if denying monopolizing of ideas in the begining of your comment without any logic, reason, or substance, while asserting it in the concluding thought without any logic, reason(pettiness?) or substance, is not talking about monopolizing on ideas.
Eat my shit you Idiot.
Because you can explain that or even begin to make sense trying to explain that. Absurdity awatis. Hey Don't Believe me, try it!