Even…They’re much smarter than average human of 
.
So, at the end no medium no numbers, no information.
It’s very possibility to ever be able to represent information depends on a medium.
Yes, but information itself is not that representation, it’s an abstract concept. Besides, this is irrelevant to our discussion.
I have already said that physical media can be owned, but the information, which is the states in which these physical media are, cannot be owned. In other words, you own your paper and your ink, I own my paper and my ink. I don’t get to tell you what you can write on your paper with your ink, and you don’t get to tell me what I can write on my paper with my ink.
Have a ever met such a human?
Or is it just a concept in your own mind?
Off topic. Please make a new thread about this.
Oh, you govern EndeavourOS pub by decrees! 
What you are doing is deconstruction. It’s not a discussion, but a technique to paralyse discussion by asking meaningless questions and sidetracking the main topic. You do this very often, and frankly, it’s annoying, and unproductive, because at first, I actually take you seriously and respond to you, wasting time and effort:
– “2 + 2 = 4” is a true statement.
– Wrong, numbers do not exist without tangible representation. What is a number?
That is all your own interpretation within the confines of your own mind!
It might or might not have anything at all to do with the realities outside of it.
As a constructive and productive suggestion, perhaps reviewing the Classics might be a good idea.
Wish you many future victories in debates with well-founded argumentation!
In my experience, there is a special remote Desktop device as a client, it has no disk, no CD drive and no USB.
This device has only one network card, weak GPU, mouse and keyboard. It does not need high performance and only needs connection to Desktop from server in powerful mainframe.
The server and the mainframe are fully controlled by property. It doesn’t let you copy any data out and share other people.
But only your external camera can record information from the remote desktop.
Enough of this…I believe it is time for the “Nuclear Option”…
.
I’m contacting Metallica and telling them this is Napster all over again… 
I warned you, it was a trap!
You have forgotten the 1st rule of Open Source :
Open first, think later
Even with a nuclear bomb, if you open the code, anyone can build it, so it doesn’t provide any advantage specifically, different from shoe crafting, for example.
OTOH, your answer is important, as it introduces one more new word (or meaning).
Hide, secretelly do something, keep it away from others for a reason.
And also,
thinking, judging, which implies some principles by which we have to judge.
- Do we all share the same principles?
- Who do we mean with we all?
- If you “destroy all records of it”, wouldn’t you eliminate a remarkable amount of time and effort of yours (dig a hole, fill a hole)?
- If you “destroy all records of it”, and then someone else invents the same potentially dangerous idea and sell it to a powerful entity?
My point is that it is simpler to promote Full Open Source, than to act like you have the power to give or take live (God) 
.
OTOH (3rd hand 
) in an immoral society, where powerful people try to eliminate every competitor and to gather gazillions of money, regardless if there is misery and poverty throughout the world, an idea like yours (there is no ownership on intellectual property) would only benefit them. IMHO, I only see the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, if there is no restriction at all.
It doesn’t matter whether you are right or wrong with your argument. The result will be against those that need support. The fact that laws are not good, or perfect, or not enforced properly, does not make copyright related laws insensible, or meaningless.
Have I told you I don’t like people telling me I’m wrong? 
It’s a fair warning, since you almost did it.
I did not say that exactly. I suggest that food is the case we should solve, but for every artist, not only Picasso, or Bach. Or state clearly if you suggest only the best should survive, while the mediocre, or less capable can just die (who cares, anyway?) .
- How is that exactly, sir?
- Who is the one that will not let him starve?
- If who is more than one, are they going to vote, or will they decide by acclamation, or applause?
I think you forget that artists is only an example for an intellectual product developer. You can replace artist with code programmer, if it helps you set your feet on the ground 
.
And who is to judge the quality of the artist/developer, and by which principles? Who wants to play God again?
Unless someone lives in a totalitarian regime, citizens choose their governments. 
Life sucks.
We live among them…
I wonder how you’ve got this impression. It’s fake .
Everything should be open in a world that people are not sheep.
Until then, we need better ideas for copyright laws, and better congressmen to represent us. 
For example, I would suggest intellectual product creators getting a free pass for public events and public transportation and a standard monthly wage. I suppose a relevant committee should judge and approve his work.
Any other ideas?
(trolling accepted 
)
2 Likes
I much appreciate your efforts petsam but, in the end, everyone is the hero in their own story and you are try to use reason against someone who desperately needs to rationalize software piracy. Look at the thread, he has only one supporter who, lately, seems limited to posting clown images. He’s an outlier here, “full of sound and fury…signifying nothing”.
AI because AI will take over everyone’s job and pay everyone 10G a month and everyone can just party on the beach and be hot! It will be a new revolutionized social and economic system where everyone is equal, no more poor and no more rich. It will be a utopian society!
https://twitter.com/GhostofWhitman/status/1679713330036875264?t=YMPgEFQRAlattmkK7Fgrww&s=08
…or a great “Matrix” prequel
1 Like
I think you are offending someone, for something you think you understand. How sure are you that you can microscopically spot a remote digital identity’s intentions?
I strongly suggest you take it back and be careful how you talk against people you don’t really know.
I am sorry if I disappoint you as well, but I (still) have the privilege of my own opinion.
2 Likes
ya know what? That’s a fair comment, I will take it back…
3 Likes
There is a difference between keeping a secret and using violence to prevent people to use information they have access to.
With information that I think is harmful, I would try to keep it a secret. For example, I would destroy all copies of the blueprints for a nuclear weapon I have access to. It’s a personal judgement, based on my personal virtues. I have every right to not share the information I have access to. However, once I do share it (either intentionally or by being reckless) and somebody else copies it, I have no right to force them to destroy it. By the way, that is my position on privacy, too. Privacy means keeping a secret. The person who wishes to have privacy is the one solely responsible for not leaking information.
Past time and effort is worthless. It’s a sunken cost, you can’t do anything now to get it back. You can only learn a lesson and try to not waste it in the future.
That’s a good question. You can’t really un-invent a nuclear bomb, so it is unlikely that I will be possible to destroy all records of it (since most of them are not in my possession). The best I can do is say: I will not proliferate it, every copy I own, I will destroy. The others may do differently with their copies.
I know you don’t like to be told you’re wrong, but you’re wrong. It’s very easy to demonstrate it. The rich people have more power than the poor people. The politicians are not owned by poor people, but by the rich people. If the absence of the entire concept of intellectual property benefited the rich and powerful, there would be no intellectual property and we wouldn’t have this discussion. The fact copyright laws exist, and especially the fact that the most rich and powerful corporations are fighting tooth and nail to make them even more restrictive, tells you that the truth is the exact opposite.
If I am a plumber and every time I come to fix your boiler, I do a crappy job, create a flood, damage the pipes, etc… and you’re unhappy with my work, do I deserve to be paid? It’s the same thing for artists: those whose work are not good would be better off doing something else than being artists. Just because some artist leaves a messy bed and calls it art, doesn’t mean that I have to appreciate that and feed her for it.
Everyone should find out in their lives what they are best at, so that they can provide for themselves the best they can, by serving their fellow. Some people make poor plumbers, some people make poor artists. But everyone should be good at something…
People who appreciate the art and want to see more of it in the world.
A paying customer is not God. It’s a person who wants something done, but doesn’t have the ability to do it himself, so he hires someone whose talents and skills are suitable for the job. I am certainly not going to support artists whose art I don’t find valuable. To me, Duchamp’s Urinal is not art, and I wouldn’t pay to see it or buy it. But that’s a matter of taste. If you like that type of “art”, feel free to support it.
Well, the “unless” part of that statement is the key. I can’t really think of a regime currently in power that is not totalitarian or corrupt to a significant degree. Maybe Lichtenstein? (which is irronic, given that it’s a monarchy)
I think this is not a good idea, because it would only encourage mediocrity. I could easily take unfair advantage of such a system, and if I could, many others could, too. I personally know at least a dozen people who would want nothing more than for productive taxpayers to feed their lazy arses, so they can afford to be failed artists.
It would also make the “relevant committee” prone to corruption. I would be like having movie critics determine how much money a film should make. It would also introduce political bias to arts. Art that is approved by the regime would get funding, art that is critical of the regime would get censored. Whenever there is temptation, there is sin, especially among politicians and appointed committees.
How about letting the audience decide by making it very easy (and tax-free) to financially support art, like it was in the past? I think there is very little that needs to be changed (apart from completely abolishing all laws pertaining to copyright and patents). An artist could then have two strategies of making a living: either try to create art that pleases the masses and get many small donations, or find a rich patron and create art that please him or her. In both cases, the artist is motivated to be the best he can and make works that people like (which is a desirable thing in art).
2 Likes
-
I support only myself, and my own views.
-
LATELY ?!
Stop offending me sir, i LIVE for it, all my everydaying is on full display on that forum!
Besides, i clearly stated my views many times before that thread even existed, it’s not the first time such discussion has started around, there’s nothing more to rationalize or add to it from my vantage point.
@Kresimir is doing great so far, explaining obvious things of what property is and what it is not, for people who clearly has no interest in reality or truth of the matter, however someone who haven’t give it any thought before at all - may stumble upon this discussion later and decide for himself, it’s not written for only you or me. What he is talking about has deep philosophical, historical and political basis, there are many books and articles written on it, however alien it may seem to those who haven’t read anything except what current law says (and it can say extreme, horrible as well as very stupid things, there are too many precedents throughout centuries to dispute that).
My advice is not to judge and think that everyone around is doing something first and thinking second, trying to rationalize own actions later (i mean i get that most people clearly do, that’s why we live in , but not all of us wired same way).
Copyright is absolutely ridiculous and immoral set of laws that is based on absolutely nothing.
Our highly trained monkeys have detected that you are using samples from John Cage’s 4’33", owned by
So all of you here should PAY UP FOR EVERY 6+ SECONDS YOU’RE SILENT!!!111111
NOW!!!111111111
See how i’ve just invented universal infinite global tax?
P.S. I’m waiting.
P.P.S. btw, i stole that joke, i should go to jail according to some intellectuals of that thread 
P.P.P.S.
HONK-HONK!!!
2 Likes
Yeah, you did. You owe me royalties…