Communism means a moneyless society. There is no “earning for your labor” anymore and in turn no real loss for the artist that prevents them from having access to basic necessities, nor any real incentive for others to illegally copy someone’s work in the first place. So no, communism doesn’t really need any kind of copyright. Making it mandatory to credit the original artist could be mandatory, but that’s about it.

Though I do agree with your second paragraph for the time being, where money earned through labor is required to survive.

Unless you forget to bind your torrent client to the VPN interface. Found that out the hard way and had to pay 600 € for like 10 seconds of accidental seeding, and that was after negotiating with the law firm, else it would have been around 1k €. So yeah, the commenter above was not kidding with torrenting in Germany being dangerous, even the slightest error in your setup can be pretty expensive. Now I only use i2p torrents to be on the really safe side, and also because I want to see the network grow.

He uses the term wrong, but yes, that’s what’s implied.

Okay, I’m going to spell it out for you, because clearly you have no fucking idea what Romeo and Juliet laws are. These laws allow teenagers to have sex with others in a similar age group, for example between 14 and 16, but not above. So these laws don’t make it legal for an adult to have sex with a 14 year old. Now first: What’s bad about “defending a pedo”? For fucks sake, use your words correctly, what you mean is “defending someone who thinks that sexual acts between children and adults are okay”, which isn’t really happening here. Stallman questions the damage done by sexual acts with children as related to other factors besides the sexual acts themselves, which I disagree with because of the lack of physical development alone, but it’s a fair thought to have about things like supposed mental harms.

it is just that you can’t read.

I can, I just interpreted the sentence differently. To me it sounds like he uses “some people are ready earlier.” in relation to the current age of consent in the US. Hard to say which interpretation is correct here without context or clarification from Stallman himself.

this discussion is not about age of consent

Uhm, yes it is? When Stallman mentions that people ought to be allowed to have sex at age 14, that is leading to a discussion directly tied to the age of consent. He didn’t even make the claim that sexual acts with children should be allowed (besides possibly our differentiating interpretation in question), he merely questioned the belief that they are inherently harmful.

i did not bring that up. you did, multiple times, in spite of that not being relevant at all. only you know why you are so bent on defending fucking children.

It was YOUR quote of Stallman regarding his point that 14 is an acceptable age. So it’s only logical for me to bring this up to prove to you that it’s not an unpopular take. And not once have I defended fucking children here, you’re seeing ghosts.

i am done with you, glorious pedo defender, no need to reply, you are in my ignore list, and please don’t approach any children, since you are obviously heavily confused about what is acceptable around them.

Well, I already explained above why “pedo defender” defender is not the insult you think it is. And sure, run away from anything that questions your world view, because yours is the only correct one. No wonder why the average person is so stupid. Your baseless assumptions about me are also pretty lame.

According to your own comment, Stallman literally said “NOT INDISCRIMINATELY”, which to me can only mean Romeo and Juliet laws and/or only after mandatory sex education. Do you fucking know what words mean? Your scenario is completely made up in your head and not something Stallman advocates for, at least not according to the quotes you yourself provided.

except romeo was not 70 yo creep secretly longing to fuck 12 years old.

So this scenario is something that YOU made up. He also said 14 according to the quotes provided, not 12. Interesting how you’re moving the goal posts.

And defending the age of consent to be 14 is not “pro-pedo”, and there is no such thing, because as I just explained, pedophilia is a state of something that can’t be okay or not okay, favoured or not favoured, it just is. Also it refers to children below that age, so you really need to upgrade your vocabulary and learn the definitions of words in it. Defending this age barrier is called having a fucking brain. So yes, attacking people for saying that 14 is a reasonable age of consent, especially when also mentioning Romeo and Juliet laws, is extremely prudish.

Can you even read? I did explain that in the very first sentence, by mentioning that your scenario would not be legally possible.

And I was just wondering, because US Americans online are often extremely prudish and self-centered, which matches your attitude.

Do you even know what Romeo and Juliet laws are? Because with those, you’re scenario is not legally possible.

Basically all countries in South America have their age of consent at 14, plus some in Africa and Asia, and Europe is also pretty evenly split between 14-15 and 16. This is not unpopular at all, but go ahead and scream at everyone with a differing opinion because yours is the only “correct” one.

Just out of curiosity: Are you US American by chance?

And that’s why I was wondering if the question was asked verbatim. Stallman doesn’t seem to know what the word means either.

I don’t get what’s supposed to be so controversial about the first part, though. Many countries already have their age of consent somewhere around 14, often including Romeo and Juliet laws (i.e. not indiscriminately), so not really an unpopular take, and I can’t say I disagree with him there.

“We can imagine many scenarios, but the most plausible scenario is that she presented herself to him as entirely willing.” […] When a person on the email chain noted that the girl was 17 at the time, and that sex with a minor is statutory rape, Stallman replied, “I think it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”

Seems logical. The real issue in her case was human trafficking, which is illegal irrespective of age.

edit: jeez, that’s a lot of pedophiles we have here on lemmy. you sick f.cks carefully choose fraction of the quotes i presented and try to spin it and you are not good at it.

Funny how you criticised ad hominem attacks in another comment, while resorting to the same tactic. And yeah, pedophiles are everywhere, including Lemmy, so what? Then again, I don’t see any around here.

he also uses term “voluntarily pedophilia”, pedophilia is when adult person is attacted to kid.

Correct. Though “voluntary pedophilia” is a nonsensical term.

and there is no such thing as vuluntary pedophilia because the kid cannot give informed consent.

Incorrect. There is no such thing as voluntary pedophilia because pedophilia only refers to the attraction, which not a choice. What you mean is simply “there is no such thing as (voluntary) consent by children”.

whatever is in your heads guys, please know it is not acceptable for adult man to fuck a kid younger than 14 years, under any circumstances.

I don’t see anyone here making the claim that it is.

Precisely what I meant, thank you. People seem to have troubles differentiating between thoughts and actions when it comes to paraphilias.

You’re going beyond the meaning of the word. Pedophilia is just the attraction itself, there can’t be anything okay or not okay with it, it just is. That’s like asking “Is psychopathy okay?”. There’s no answer for asking if the state of something is okay or not okay, because like I said, it just is.

To be fair, the question (if it was asked verbatim) doesn’t even make sense. Pedophilia can’t really be okay or not okay, it just is.