Subnostr

hh

82bdee506e769ebc94ee2f362d07c1960dce40bac650d826a42f8e0c019c3c96

In principle, no.

Btw, if you missed the news, in August the TSA thugs finally achieved their objective of "equal pay" and rights, including the right to unionize. Current budget of the racket is around $10 B/year. nostr:note13mn3psw8sdfgpzwcevs3efy3uqnvsrh4m3ffvsvt6gz9he9nn8nsga6sgv

Likely have already scraped facial recog data from the CCTVs anyway

When you go through "security" (the TSA racket) they're already scanning you and keeping that shit forever in some dark server.

i have to get a face scan to board… can I decline this?

nostr:note1uvehu9aj8826zxrlnu0zyvvsm7crl0rqf5acqx6speu7uwepecesflghd8

That's not what I said though.

Intellectual property is the claim of a product developer to own the commercialization of that product.

If you develop a product and I want to sell your product to the market, we enter into a voluntary deal to accomplish that.

If I just start producing your product commercially without a deal with you, then I'm operating on the fraudulent (non-voluntary) side of things.

Nope, I wouldn't. Fraud would be for instance if I make a copy of your book and sell it misrepresenting myself as the author. I'd be lying to the buyer.

Does this mean that before contracting with you I need to know whether you believe in the morality of the contract?

I would lie, since you'd be trying to con me...

When you say “isn’t sellable” do you mean “is immoral to sell”?

Seems like this may be what’s driving the disagreement.

I’d agree with nostr:npub1y02f89rpykzhqmrjjz99uwgyl9gh06sg0vpjmklu62rzxpx8mxps7zfvpl that it’s technically possible to exchange money for an object with 0s and 1s burned into it like a CD, or for that matter a promise to connect computers together and tickle each other’s wires just right so the recipient ends up with 1s and 0s in all the correct places.

You can buy and sell and pay for whatever you want if you please. What I'm saying is that I am not morally obliged to do so, and that's not an infringement of anybody's property rights.

I’d argue it’s not an agreement to “own” the information, rather to do or not do certain things in the future.

So in the example, there is obviously no agreement/obligation. And claiming IP doesn’t change that.

But are you nostr:npub1s277u5rww60te98w9umz6p7pjcxuus96cegdsf4y978qcqvu8jtq88dsym saying that one cannot choose to commit themselves to a future course of action?

I'm saying I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to show to those who would enter such an agreement - because they've been duped to believe the "licenser" is morally correct and backed by the right to private property. If they didn't buy the idea that the conman passing as a "seller" actually owns the thing "sold", why would they?

You are wasting my time.

Of course the CD information is sellable. You can literally print and sell CD's from that information.

However, if you don't have a commercial license, i.e. a deal with the IP owner to sell that product, but still decide to print and sell those albums, then you are operating on the fraudulent side, which in a free market results in a loss of reputation.

You keep mixing up stuff and framing things incorrectly, sadly. What you keep talking about is simply a claim on being the first one to bring forth a particular arrangement of information. Indeed, an author has that claim and that's why falsely claiming authorship is frowned upon and reputation lost. Absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about, still.

People should probably do what they say they will do.

But to clarify, I’d suggest specifically discussing the case where a person claims IP, and you happen to have the information on your computer with no foul play involved (maybe let’s say they sold you their old computer but never wiped the drive)

You are actually conceding the case when you accept the lie that anyone can "own" information in the first place. If you admit that untruth, then your "innocent" computer user is guilty of possessing stolen merchandise.

Saying that you can enter an agreement to "own" information is like saying you can claim ownership and license away a cloud. It's not a matter of a gullible individual who "freely" accepts to enter such an agreement, because the initial claim affects the whole human species. And it must simply be rejected and ridiculed as the whacky, greedy idea it is.

The first 2 doses did damage but it seems that the real immune suppression comes from the boosters.

I can't believe that people are still rolling up their sleeves.

A few days ago I was checking someone's publicly shared calendar and they had their booster date marked on it a month ahead. Another one said that "excess deaths" are a made-up conspiracy theory and that "even if true, vaccines saves more lives". All this in the US. In Europe I don't even dare ask or discuss.

Incomprehensible to me.

You are evading the subject and making nonsensical claims.

How is a book or an album not sellable?

The information they contain isn't sellable. The objects are.

Imposing?

A license is a voluntary agreement between a seller and buyer. The type of license determines the price. A license to commersially sell an album will be much more expensive than a license to own your own copy of that album.

I am questioning individuals that don't believe in voluntarism.

You're trying to sell something that is not sellable to begin with because it is not a piece of property. It's a made up claim with no base.

I would love to see these videos. There were so many fake ones from Ukraine that I doubt every detail of that conflict.

You would not, unless you're a sick fuck.

I would say that you fundamentally don't understand what intellectual property means.

The 3D model that I have modeled is the intellectual property, just as a book or a music album is intellectual property. I will explain how it works.

For example, if you buy a book, it comes with a license to do what you want with that book, except for printing and selling it for profit. Same with the music album.

If you buy a 3D model, you either buy it at a cheap price with a standard license, which grants you full right to 3D print it for your private use. This however is not the same as a commercial license to produce and sell a product.

In regards to upholding intellectual property, that is a different matter. As a free market proponent I believe that reputation is the best arbiter in most cases. If I rip someone off, my reputation will suffer.

Neither a book nor a CD are "intellectual property" because such thing does not exist. You can own the physical objects, not the information inscribed on them. The fact that I learn a song or a book you wrote by heart doesn't deprive you from it, yet now I "own" it too. You couldn't prevent me from memorizing them, either, which proves that it you didn't "own" them to begin with.

Also, I never said anything about "upholding" anything. You seem to be stuck with legal terms and constructs that have zero relevance in this discussion, which is ontological.

I'm not a "pacifist", despite basing my personal individual behavior on the principle of non-aggression, despite being antiwar and believing modern war is just yet another Statist racket to crush individuals. In fact, I'm not a "pacifist" BECAUSE of all the above. Deterrence: "Si vis pacem, para bellum", the credible threat of brutal, disproportionate retaliation, and its reality if such sad time comes when it's necessary.

My point being, I can envision scenarios in which civilians are not just innocent bystanders, and make valid targets of violence, especially in a situation of completely asymmetric power against a rich electoral democracy. Doesn't mean in the particular case of Israel and the Arabs I take the latter's side, because there are tons more of factors. Doesn't mean I take Israel's side either, for the same reason.

However, all this said, and even under such broad and loose assumptions, no one can possibly watch the images and videos leaked live on X during the attacks, even as their team struggled to delete them within minutes or seconds, and say that was a military operation. It was butchery, savagery and animalness.

And the perpetrators, those who physically host them and give them cover, those who aided them, and those who support and justify them deserve whatever is coming to them.

If you're among the latter, go watch the videos I'm talking about before you reply here. Post them here where no one will take them down, if you have the balls. Then, give me your arguments. Otherwise, this will be a short, uncivilized exchange. nostr:note1p660l7hcyp82t8n9dcmf09j5se4rzntnskverkaymfcaw83zkptsfmsj5x

Fuckkkk not yet. I need a few more months. Let's all chill and stick to the plan and just keep crabbing away at least until the end of 2024, ok? nostr:note1vzeyscpsfk6vft4exermgu6x2hk00fplnj58a39dnswz9lzv0jhs77r7ek

First of all your definition is incomplete, ergo false.

Intellectual property is that which you create. When you write a book, compose a song or sculpt a sculpture, that is your intellectual property.

Below is a helmet I have modeled in 3D. It is my intellectual property. This doesn't prevent you from modeling your own helmet like this.

In a free market, intellectual property is primarily arbited via reputation. If I steal your book and publish it under my name, the market will likely find this out and my reputation takes a hit.

Instead of attacking intellectual property, adress the far-reaching regulations and extreme forms of IP laws where companies can copyright mere words.

I think it is your definition that is false, out of the two in this thread. The helmet you created is your property - period. Because you made it. The non-physical idea of the helmet is not property, intellectual or otherwise, because you don't have a way to prevent others from accessing it, once it's "out there" (quite literally, out of your brain).

Likely true. I'm sure I'd at least be able to trade the monopoly money for food.

What monopoly money? There's hardly $55 billion in paper bills in circulation, and around half of those are not physically in the USA. Of the other half, how many are already in banks? And how many do you think you'll be able to get your hands on?

I'm not picking on you or trying to be a dick. I'm just trying to convey how fucked we will be, in a realistic manner.

I’d say that depends entirely on how smart/flexible you want it to be.

I think your example looks fairly simple. Some people might expect it to work with much more complicated emails. Building it to either fail gracefully or succeed on those more complicated ones would be hard.

But just that example, I think you could it in an iOS shortcut in an hour or two.

Ah, I think I see where you're going. I'll explore it! Thanks

Breaking this task down:

Verify contact information - ❌

Compose email - ✅

Open email application - ❌

Send email - ❌

But if you write your own code those could all be ✅

How daunting a job would it be, do you reckon?

Load More