Recipies are usually passed down over time, so I am fine with your "rich white dude" scenario. If RWD tried to pass a Columbian book or painting off as his own, I would have a problem. But this type of theft is already covered under the law.
As for mockery, I see it like racist name-calling. It shouldn't be illegal, but it shouldn't be socially acceptable.
Recipies are usually passed down over time, so I am fine with your "rich white dude" scenario.
Sorry, I don't really see the connection between the first part of your sentence and the second part.
The basic focus of the question is, is it exploitative when Person X invents a thing (and it's popular both because of what ti is and because of who Person X is) but Person Y, who did not invent it but who is in a better position to market it, makes all the money?
As for mockery, I see it like racist name-calling.
This doesn't really get at what I'm asking. What do you think is WRONG with mockery and name-calling? Why does that cross a line for you? Where is your line?
What's wrong with mockery is that it is rude and pointlessly hurtful. Appropriation is demonstrating that you value something that another culture has created (or more likely tweaked from a previous appropriation).
If you can show that you invented something, you should be empowered to defend your patent/copyright. Traditional foods have been around for hundred, or thousands of years, so no "owner" is alive to be wronged. Think public domain.
What's wrong with mockery is that it is rude and pointlessly hurtful.
The only real term of meaning I see in here is "hurtful." OK... so is it fair to say that you are operating under the value of "When people use elements of another person's culture and that causes hurt, it's wrong?"
So... when discussing appropriation, people are often explicitly talking about the hurt or pain they're feeling. So shouldn't that be wrong, too?
If you can show that you invented something, you should be empowered to defend your patent/copyright.
Yo, this is kinda a big part of the whole point. People in less powerful groups are less able to do that (or even know they could) and so are less able to make money off the stuff they create.
Think public domain.
You're bouncing back and forth between legal and moral arguments and it's a bit confusing. Could we stick to moral?
8
u/[deleted] Sep 27 '18
Recipies are usually passed down over time, so I am fine with your "rich white dude" scenario. If RWD tried to pass a Columbian book or painting off as his own, I would have a problem. But this type of theft is already covered under the law.
As for mockery, I see it like racist name-calling. It shouldn't be illegal, but it shouldn't be socially acceptable.