this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
310 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
341 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This is going into feasability and away from morality, but ok.

The law is the "mutually agreed contract", and the usage created the dept. You can be expected to know that the design of a bridge might be copyrighted, you can't be expected to know that a bridge is private property and crossing it requires a fee. Ergo it's on you to contact the owner of the design, and it's on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ergo it's on you to contact the owner of the design, and it's on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.

why?

[–] shrugal@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Because of the sentence before the one you quoted. I'm sorry, but this is getting silly.