Philosophy Now Forum

These rights are necessary to enable freedom in a digital society.

•absolute right to monitor your family unit (consensual terms) and property in all ways at all times

•absolute right to record anything you experience

•absolute privacy in your own living space

Unfortunately this means that most privacy will be gone forever, but it will also enable focusing our energies on protecting it where it is possible.

As for copyright, good riddance. It's theft.

As for copyright, good riddance. It's theft.

How is copyright theft?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:57 pm As for copyright, good riddance. It's theft.

How is copyright theft?

I suspect he's being ironic or sarcastic.

Either that or he's against ownership of ideas or technology.

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=503667 time=1616453825 user_id=472]
[b]As for copyright, good riddance. It's theft.[/b]

How is copyright theft?
[/quote]

Ideas belong to no one. They're the property of the universe. I can see a possible legal exception for patents, but probably not even that, except as a temporary necessary evil. Trademarks i concur with.

Ideas belong to no one.

So, if someone had a mind to take TheWholeStory and make a buck on it, you'd have no objections?

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=503753 time=1616505234 user_id=472]
[b]Ideas belong to no one.[/b]

So, if someone had a mind to take TheWholeStory and make a buck on it, you'd have no objections?
[/quote]

I don't own The Truth. But the truth is also that they didn't write The Whole Story. They should write their own version with their own style. If they're making a buck on it, that's fraud x2, saying they wrote it and saying they own it.

In short, yes i would object, but not for the reasons you're implying. I am not a hypocrite, asshole.

My intent for my version is to publish it as a pulp first so that is most easily accessible to everyone, always have a digital version free, and put all of my "profits", after basic living needs are secured, into publicity for it.

bonus: each later version will have a slightly nicer print run and cost slightly more. Eventually there may be a gold leaf leatherbound masterpiece version.

that's fraud

Yes, it would be. Fraud is sumthin' copyright defends against.


I am not a hypocrite, asshole.

But you are an idiot, dipshit.

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=503758 time=1616505956 user_id=472]
[b]that's fraud[/b]

Yes, it would be. Fraud is sumthin' copyright defends against.


[b]I am not a hypocrite, asshole.[/b]

But you are an idiot, dipshit.
[/quote]

Not at all, copyright protects profit, trademark protects the legitimacy of the source. That's why i'm not against trademark. It's useful without unnecessarily infringing on knowledge as a whole because it only applies to individual instances, like The Whole Story. Which can be distributed freely so selling it would also be the same kind of theft as copyright is, trying to prevent others from having equal access. The initial run will fund the capacity to print another run, the whole point being dissemination. The use of the profits and the print run upgrades are both intended to increase dissemination after the most easily accessible one has sold out. Separate runs also leaves open switching to other publishers in case anyone tries to capture it.

No i'm not. I'm very smart.

copyright protects profit

What's your beef with profit?

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/i ... basics.asp


I'm very smart.

Let's review...

To be free, folks ought to let elites decide for them.

Freelancers, independent contractors, gig workers ought not be able to accept the risks of self-employment.

Intellectual property ownership ought not be protected.

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, no.

>What's your beef with profit?

It's inherently unfair and destabilizing.

>[i]To be free, folks ought to let elites decide for them.

Yes, the best people for the job, actually elite, not rich and popular. What's your problem with merit? Or are you trying to pretend i support anything remotely resembling the current system where they meaning of elite is anything but?

>Freelancers, independent contractors, gig workers ought not be able to accept the risks of self-employment.

Ought not to have to is what i said. Ought not be able to is what you heard because you want to believe i'm against freedom.

It's the purpose of society to look out for people in all the ways they can't; and to the extent they pay taxes, all the ways they want. Ensuring basic survival and personal progress for all is the Least society can do to validate it's own existence.

>Intellectual property ownership ought not be protected.

That's correct. We'd live in a much better world if it wasn't. No one is entitled to succeed based soley on having created something or entitled to prevent anyone else from creating anything, even if it's indifferently or intentionally identical to their own.

>You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, no.

Close to it. I only claim to be the sharpest knife in this particular knife drawer at the moment.

It's inherently unfair and destabilizing.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that it's dynamic. It's the payoff for an investment of self into activity where there are no guarantees of success. It is a symptom of freedom.


Yes, the best people for the job, actually elite, not rich and popular. What's your problem with merit? Or are you trying to pretend i support anything remotely resembling the current system where they meaning of elite is anything but?

The problem with your lil meritocracy, your technocracy, is someone else decides, someone else -- like you -- would tell others, for example, they can have, can make, no profit.


Ought not to have to is what i said. Ought not be able to is what you heard because you want to believe i'm against freedom.

No one is forced to freelance. And: you are anti-freedom if you believe the state -- any version -- bestows freedom.


It's the purpose of *society to look out for people in all the ways they can't; and to the extent they pay taxes, all the ways they want. Ensuring basic survival and personal progress for all is the Least society can do to validate it's own existence.

Society has no purpose. Society is just people livin' in proximity to each other without spillin' blood. What you mean is *government, and the only legit purpose of gov is to preserve individual life, liberty, and property.


That's correct. We'd live in a much better world if it wasn't. No one is entitled to succeed based soley on having created something or entitled to prevent anyone else from creating anything, even if it's indifferently or intentionally identical to their own.

So the writer, the code-cobbler, the painter, the chef, the photographer, the inventor, etc., none of the folks should have a jot of control over their work...the novel, the program, the recipe, the photograph, the widget, these should all enter the public domain immediately.

No ownership, no profit....what exactly do you think freedom is?


I only claim to be the sharpest knife in this particular knife drawer at the moment.

You're not.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:13 pm Ideas belong to no one.

So, if someone had a mind to take TheWholeStory and make a buck on it, you'd have no objections?

You know, Advocate might be on to something. I think that it would "spread the wealth" more as well as create more wealth if people could just do whatever they want with anything that is published or created. Get rid of the whole copyright or patent system. If I make a shovel based on someone else's revolutionary design, then why should I pay royalties or something like that just to copy someone else's design? If I need the design for my purposes, then I should be able to make it if I can. No one should own the "rights" to anything that another person can produce or reproduce on their own. If I write a wonderful hit song and someone else decides to put it on their music album, they shouldn't need my permission. If they want to make a derivative of it using 99% of my writing, then they shouldn't need to ask any kind of permission from me to do it. I mean, it would be nice to say, "Gary wrote a song which I am deriving my work from." But if they don't, then what can I say or do? Or, if someone else wants to use ALL of what I wrote and make an album out of it, why should I be able to stop them by saying, "that's my music." Again, it would be nice to cite me as a source, but if they don't want to, that's just the way it is. No harm, no foul.

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:18 pm In short, yes i would object, but not for the reasons you're implying. I am not a hypocrite, asshole.

You can always invent yet another distinction/justification to protect that lie.

As it has always been, so it is even more true in 2021. Ideas are a dime a dozen - knowledge is published as open source.

Ideas don't matter - the execution of ideas matters. 1% inspiration. 99% perspiration.

Intellectual Property advocates are just bummed about the fact that merely producing ideas is not profitable anymore, so they want protection against people who can execute better.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 7:55 am If I write a wonderful hit song and someone else decides to put it on their music album, they shouldn't need my permission. If they want to make a derivative of it using 99% of my writing, then they shouldn't need to ask any kind of permission from me to do it. I mean, it would be nice to say, "Gary wrote a song which I am deriving my work from." But if they don't, then what can I say or do? Or, if someone else wants to use ALL of what I wrote and make an album out of it, why should I be able to stop them by saying, "that's my music." Again, it would be nice to cite me as a source, but if they don't want to, that's just the way it is. No harm, no foul.

Story from 2018

Programmers generate every possible melody in MIDI to prevent lawsuits