On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:09:00PM +0000, Hollow Domer wrote:
juan juan.g71 at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 12:13:41 PDT 2017
[do not] infringe other people's rights
Ack.
the moment you publish them they are not 'yours' anymore. they come from other people.
So ideas are not the property of someone,
Except until that person publicizes the idea. Until then, it's "his" idea. But, when published, those who read the publication, are duplicating the idea into their own brains, therefore now "they" own the idea too. (duplicate modulo capacity to grok of course...)
unless it is a new idea, then it belongs to all those who thought before it,
Come on - we've all heard the principle "I stand on the shoulders of giants". Language itself - that mechanism where concepts in thought are translated into sequences of sounds and/ or caricaters in order to convey the idea to another soul/mind, is a pretty fantastic "invention" or "discovery" or "creation". Let's not get too caught up on pedantry eh?
copyright and patents
The legal terms are what we disagree on. The right to ownership is not. I concede to your argument against my defense of laws to defend things, seeable or not.
Mercantilistic individuals when they "think" that they "have thunked" a "great idea" which they wish to "profit" from, might consider only sharing/communicating that idea "privately" with other humans who sign an onerous odious ogre-ous not-disclosure agreement or something. However most folks these days have become accustomed to things like the Free Software movement, the Wikipedia and the licenses at the foundation of these types of public sharing arrangements, and therefore very few folks these days will ever enter into ("stupid" in my humble opinion) self-sabotaging contracts. It's hard to resist Steve Kinney's observation yesterday though - "it is our moral duty to relieve a fool of his money" - I kid, I kid - for the sake of our collective future we ought (where possible) educate those who cross our path.
And you are accusing me of doing what *you* do? please.
If you think that the right to ownership can only be granted by others, which is what you argue when you say that the right to copy can only be granted as a privilege by some external authority.
That's actually what copyright is. You could personally use something like contract, instead of copyright, in order to "protect" your "original idea", but when you rely on copyright, you are relying on some statute law in some jurisdiction, ∴ created by the govt of that jurisdiction, and that govt says something like "we will allow you to sue/punish those who "violate" your copy'right'. Copyright is in our era something created by govt statute. Contract is what you can, by your own right/capacity, enter into with other humans, and it's a different beast entirely.
United States of America was founded in 1776 as a slave society/concentration camp?
The United States is “a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed, circumcised Jew bastards". -Bobby Fischer
Prove Jews didn't own all the slave ships. Prove Jews didn't own most of the slaves. Prove slavery isn't a semitic tradition.
Pro-tip: **You can't.**
national borders
I never argued for "national" borders. I tried to overstand your position on what defines a border and how these "imaginary" lines, physical or not, differ from those drawn in sovereignty of one's body ?
From a purely technical perspective, one could of course argue that the boundaries of ones body are in fact, though physical, only boundaries to the extent that fellow humans respect those boundaries.
Indeed your mention of slavery brings to mind the obvious - the boundaries of the body of a slave are a very appropriate boundary which, in the mind of the slave owner, perfectly delineates his (the slave owner's) possession, and the slave is almost a non-entity, merely like cattle, and for that matter the slave is not even as useful as a bullock since the bullock can pull a laden cart or turn a grain wheel - the slave does have hands and usually a full set of fingers though, so has one up on the bullock in that regard. Frankly, as a good friend said to me years ago - I have freedom within the limits of my capacity, and I have the right to expand those limits (again, within the limits of my capacity, but also within the limits of my conception). And by obvious and logical extension, I have rights and possession over that which: - I can conceive as having rights/possession in regards to - that which I have the capacity to exercise such rights and/ or protect such "possession" To the extent that I have the unilateral capacity to "protect", "act", "do" or otherwise, it can be said that I have "an absolute in right" in regard to that thing or concept or arrangement. And the corollary: to the extent that other humans bring forth their own actions in any way in response to my actions, then it would be wise for me to consider such (re)actions from others, to actions of my own. I know this might sound like tautology - and in a sense it is of course - but it can be useful to carefully and clearly distinguish such foundations of our existence. Good luck,
You offered nothing but "not valid". Just like your "bullshit" argument; why ?
cheaters
I do not cheat, sir. How dare you. =)