Ask Lemmy

26751 readers

1477 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

If the logic of copyright/trademark/IP law applied to everything, what's the most peculiar possible implication you can think of for it? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/asklemmy

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Was thinking of this after a conversation I had on a thread about dreams. Someone joked “I was dreaming of the events of The Matrix, then I was woken up by someone worried my dream was infringing the Wachowski’s copyrights”, and it turned into a whole train of thought in my mind, like violating IP law because you stole fire from Zeus which was his intellectual property.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] NeoNachtwaechter 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Parents have to pay a fee for the firstname they give their kids. Popular firstnames cost more, gross ones cost less.

The kids themselves have to pay again for it monthly, their whole live long.

[–] pivot_root 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This might be the only valid reason to ever name a kid "Jayrahmyie"

[–] NorthWestWind 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Now everyone is going for this and they're gonna charge more WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Made themself a mint, that's what.

[–] LouNeko 5 points 1 month ago

Nah it should be like fetishes, the more obscure the more expensive. But you can get John or Mark for free.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So, who owns the name?

[–] Fried_out_Kombi 4 points 1 month ago

Some squatter who bought the rights to it for two twigs and a raspberry back when they were first selling off name rights 200,000 years ago