mouse-dog kris and their cat sibling theory (half joking but low-key /srs) 🐭🪤
$LAYYYTER
todays bird
Sade Olutola

#extradirty
The Stonewall Inn

tannertan36
h
cherry valley forever
ojovivo

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
untitled
No title available
hello vonnie
d e v o n
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
Mike Driver
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

Jimmy Eat World
Cookie Run:Kingdom Official!
KIROKAZE

seen from Australia

seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Türkiye

seen from Taiwan
seen from Azerbaijan
seen from Egypt
seen from China

seen from United States

seen from Mexico
seen from China

seen from Brazil

seen from United States

seen from Canada
seen from Israel

seen from United States

seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from Pakistan

seen from United States
@noe-jannuary
mouse-dog kris and their cat sibling theory (half joking but low-key /srs) 🐭🪤
A unicorn in captivity
fucccck…..
You hear the freedom motif as the balloon floats off in the wind
8/12/26
taking sleeping meds then not sleeping really will have you like this
Me: siiigh, if only there was a way to magically turn into a big fat catgirl…
The suspiciously shaped onion ring:
test
workout tifa 💪💦
community notes are so brutal. tumblr needs to add that feature to escalate our pvp capabilities
No the person who tweeted this made me laugh so hard the other day bc people were trying to correct them and they edited their shadow on picsart to keep the bit going
an observation i made at 11 pm
putting the warping alien in random fucking places
I don't care about gaster
legalize copyright infringement
to be clear this is a fully sincere political belief that I have. I am pro copyright infringement and in fact anti "asking for permission to make derivative art"
a few people in the notes seem to be under the impression that this is a stance that requires caveats. so just so we're all on the same page: no exceptions. "stealing art" (copying existing works for personal gain) is a good thing.
some of you seem to have bought into the capitalist lie that copyright infringement causes artists to "lose money", which fundamentally assumes that everyone (or even like a notable portion) who obtains a would-be-illegal copy would have otherwise paid full price to obtain the original. and like we all know that's not true right
So without copyright, what would prevent capitalists from taking a book and selling copies of it at a much lower price than the author? (thereby preventing the author from making money on their creative work)
this is already how copyright law works. working creatives (the majority of people in the industries) already sign away their work to "capitalists" (problematic wording - petit bourgeois artists are typically already capitalists, but i do understand the intent) and then are not permitted to make money off of or sell their work, have no claim to it, and will be legally decimated if they try to outside of whatever very narrow avenues may be granted to them
the thing about copyright abolition is that. what makes theft bad is that something is taken away from its rightful owner. in this sense, copyright infringement is literally not theft, because making a copy of something doesn't tangibly cause the original owner to lose anything that they would otherwise have. copyright enforcement, on the other hand, does take away people's access to what should be theirs. anyone who makes art while employed by a corporation and is unable to sell their work because it does not belong to them, anyone who's been sued by a pop musician for making music that sounds vaguely similar if you don't allow the jury to listen to the actual songs, these people have far more in common with victims of theft than anyone whose copyright has been infringed
like the thing with the film rights to MLK's speeches being owned by spielberg / dreamworks, that's not actually an instance where copyright law failed to protect artists. that's the system working as intended. MLK's speeches were his intellectual property. when he died the rights to that intellectual property transfered to his family, and his family decided to sell those rights to dreamworks, thereby functionally preventing anyone else from legally using those speeches in a film for the next several decades. no crime was committed, nobody was tricked into anything, that's just how intellectual property rights work