You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 04:30:18 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Consent  (Read 1998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tamhansen

Re: Consent
« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2012, 02:40:16 AM »
While I personally agree that it is polite to stop using images if asked to, I would have to point out that copyright is entirely statutory and no statute can possibly be applied to flesh and blood living souls.

As living souls we are not bound by the laws of government and have no duty to perform functions of government. Here in Canada a lot of people are waking up to this and taking back their own power and their own rights.

Copyright was originally envisaged as a pact between society and the individual to encourage the creation of new works which would then swiftly pass into the public domain and therefore into everyone's collective social history rather than being locked up by government fiat.

However as living souls this fiat is not even applicable to us as previously mentioned. All you have to do to establish your total immunity to all laws bar 'Do no harm' is to establish your existence as a living soul of inherent rights.

Copyright is a false garden and if you disagree with it why that is your right and your privilege, yet if you do not know what your inherent rights are and how to invoke them when challenged, you will always fall foul of those who would wield such things against you.

So basically, what you're saying is that as a person I need heed no law but 'do no harm' am I correct?

We are creatures that need laws to function as a society, and without those society would descend into anarchy.

Even if I consider this point valid. Why is there an exception for 'do no harm' ? If you say I need heed no laws, then it makes no sense to make an exception. Especially not an exception based purely on subjective mores.

Offline Shjade

Re: Consent
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2012, 08:31:31 AM »
I'm wondering about how the models and actresses might feel if they found out. How would you react if one of the models in a photograph you were using asked you to stop? Extending this hypothetical further, let's say they had NO legal recourse and all that they could do is ask for you to stop? Would you? Why or why not?

I'd apologize and stop using the image. If nothing else it seems like plain courtesy; it shouldn't require legal backing.

Offline mayovagn

  • Pope of the Erisian Paratheo-Anametamystikhood
  • Liege
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Location: I am a loony, a mental, a weirdo, a crazy and a freak. I dwell in the head spaces of the mad and wallow in a pool of my own insanity.
  • The Epistle of the Paranoids
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Consent
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2012, 09:22:26 AM »
So basically, what you're saying is that as a person I need heed no law but 'do no harm' am I correct?

We are creatures that need laws to function as a society, and without those society would descend into anarchy.

Even if I consider this point valid. Why is there an exception for 'do no harm' ? If you say I need heed no laws, then it makes no sense to make an exception. Especially not an exception based purely on subjective mores.

We are in anarchy right now. We have no rule of law as things stand and few if any lawful courts. If you know who you are and can defend your position and are willing to stand under your full liability then you are absolutely free to behave as you will as long as you cause no harm to another living soul. However most are unable to live in this manner and require either by their own volition or by dint of not being responsible, to be a child of the state.

Does this mean that all need to be children of the state? Are you saying that you are not willing to take full responsibility for your actions?

Do no harm is natural law, part of our inherent rights as flesh and blood living souls. We all live in our own inherent rights jurisdiction until or unless we through action or inaction, knowingly or unknowingly accept the limited liability of being children of the state.

Statutes and acts are only applicable to those performing a function of government and receiving payment for it at the time of the incident, unless you consent. This isn't to say that you are free to do whatever you want outside of those boundaries it means that you are expected to do no harm and understand yourself and your own inherent rights.

A crime in inherent rights jurisdiction is committed when provable harm is caused to another living soul. If there is no harm there is no crime.

Who is the injured party when you are drinking a beer and fishing? (Which is a 'statutory offence' in some places)

More importantly, how do all the myriad of acts, statutes and bylaws make any possible sense to you as an individual? How can you possibly know what you are and are not supposed to be allowed to do at any one time? In the US you are committing a statutory offence almost every minute of every day. How is that right? How can that be right?

The maxim of law, 'Ignorance of the law is no defence.' was written regarding inherent rights jurisdiction and cannot possibly logically be applied to even common law let alone statutory offences.

However as I stated before, if you cannot be honourable and responsible you have no place in a full responsibility world and are, of course, free to continue to exist in a statutory one. This is your choice. Yet it is also everyone else's.