In the current situation, it is declared that the Steem architecture is somehow an exclusive property of the Steem developer team. This is entirely contrary to the whole underlying principle upon which Steem is based. There might be claims that the architecture is protected by government defended copyright laws, but in the real world, for example Bittorrent, et al, such a claim does not stand up to the reality that if you give me the right to copy something, you cannot limit it, and only if I present it verbatim as my own work, it then becomes an act of fraud.
Beyond this, under Natural Law, this is a clear attempt to exercise force to falsely claim the property of alleged infringers. I think that as the current caretakers of the protocol, sure, they deserve the right to make a living out of it, even to profit handsomely. But no matter what they pray to the State Judges, under natural law they have no standing if nobody has claimed they created the original material that implements the protocol.
Not only that, by lack of any declaration in every post, these posts of users are public domain. Public domain is not a licence to claim that it is your original work. This is a clear case of fraud. But deriving work from it, even copying the whole thing and tacking on a few bits, it's still your work, even if anyone can see that you didn't do most of the work, it cannot be argued that the whole package presented is not different from the original.
Don't tempt the internet to do this to you, please, Steem people. Because they will if you upset them enough. Nobody stopped anyone from copying and modifying only small parts of the bitcoin daemon, what gives anyone else the right to do the same thing with yet another derivative work from the great Satoshi? He never claimed a right to profit over it, and nobody who does not do the due diligence to take care that the system benefits all will not profit off their derived work at the end of the day either.
really don't understand why people think Steem is some sort of anarchist friendly place.
Steem isn't a democracy or anything run by the people for the people.
This is a kingdom: you have a king, nobilities... (and a court)
And we are basically here to amuse them... if they get amused, they'll throw you coins... if not...
I really have an issue with the fact that this post is visible on the web interface to me. It doesn't even fold up. My computer wasted milliseconds downloading something I do not want to see, and milliseconds of processing time rendering it to the canvas of the browser.
I never said it was a democracy. The blockchain has no restrictions against it being downloaded, also known as making a copy, and the whole system falls apart if nobody can do this. Any claim that this is anything other than public domain is unenforceable. The system itself, maybe you can make arguments about copyright, but copyright does not preclude implementing an interface that works with the data that every node has a copy of.
The only thing that makes this place unfriendly is unfriendly people, and the fact that the architecture as it stands today, does not make it so easy for a person to shun these unfriendly people. If it was easier to shun people, then the negative interaction would never take place, and then it would be a happier place.
No, any work you create is automatically copyright to you. This post, for instance, is owned by you. l0k1. My reply is owned by me. Tomz.
No, because to share it other people copy it and put it on their computer in some way, means you have given it away to the public. That makes it public domain.
You cannot however make a copy of it and claim that you said it. My copy stands predating it, certified by miners, already on the blockchain. Anyone can look it up and see that you are lying.
Not that I do really much know about the subject, but from what I've heard, there is nothing what would make Steemit architecture exclusive and people are guessing now how long it will take for first Steemit clone to appear.
Could you provide a link for that "exclusivity declaration "?
Even if it exists it is nothing but hot air until someone takes it to a court. And even then, the court's credibility influences whether anyone pays attention to it.