🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@anonymoose

> No, that's not actually how IP or computers work. The "work" that is copyrighted is not 1s and 0s. I couldn't transcode an audio file into a different format, resulting in a completely different arrangement of 1s and 0s and therby successfully avoid the copyright. Both file formats fall under the copyrighted work, yet changing 1 bit in either which renders the file inaudible, would be perfectly acceptable under IP.

Wrong. The work copyrighted absolutely can be 1's and 0's though usually it is not, and instead copyrighted as text, or an image more abstractly.. however any set of 1's and 0's that represent the copyrighted work is therefore derived from it, and copyrighted as well (and thus yes, the 1's and 0's are copyrighted by extension). Moreover any derivatives such as modifying a single 1 or 0 would be likewise copyrighted.

> And anyway, "derivative work" only exists as a legal concept that is a subset of IP law. Therefore the argument is begging the question as it depends on IP being true for 'derivative works' to be cogent.

IP is "true" its the law. So derivative work as a concept of IP is also "true"

> And no, my arguments aren't nested, the first is an appeal to common sense, the second is the rigorous proof. I would accept a refutation of the rigorous proof as sufficient to dismiss the common sense appeal, but not the other way around.

Sure I can do that.

> We can prove this by simply looking at the economic goods matrix. Thoughts (or specifics orderings of 1s and 0s) are neither excludable nor rivalrous. Therefore as a class they cannot exist as private property.

In your "proof" even your leadin here fails... For starts "thoughts" arent copyrighted. If you happen to somehow know something i am thinking and go implement it you would not be violating any copyright as I can not copyright a thought in my head. I can copyright **expressions**, which may be some image or text that i derive from a thought. But the underlying thought, even then, is not necessarily copyrighted.

Software, for example, can do the same thing as some copyrighted piece of software. so long as it was designed from scratch and not derived directly from the other software its legal, even though it represents the same idea.

> This isn’t some esoteric point of anarco-capitalists philosophy; it is literally econ 101 level analysis.

No it isnt, as we just covered your statement isnt just not part of econ 101, but it is fundamentally incorrect.

Ergo, now that we are into your "proof" it too fails on its axiom statement.

@herag @null0x0 @Albright

@herag

It is not a "fictious construct of the elite classes"... it is very much real, it just isnt physical... non-physical does not make a thing fictitious.

> IP requires the illegitimate use of force to extract wealth for the benefit of someone who has no control over their creative work.

Also not true, not only is the use of force legitimate (as it has entered into law democratically) it also is not used over someone who "has no control over their creative work"... you have all the control over your creative work you want, as long as you arent stealing from others when you do it.

And yes it limits derivative works, as well it should. You are, however, welcome to design and build your idea from scratch. You arent limited in any meaningful way, you just can't steal other peoples hard work to avoid doing your own hard work.

@Albright @null0x0

@anonymoose

> There is no consistent theory of law or property by which a particular arrangement of 1s and 0s on my hard drive is perfect fine, but somehow is ‘theft’ if I flip 1 bit out of hundreds of thousands.

Actually IP law doesnt work like that.. if a particular arrangement of 1's and 0's is illegal, then flipping just one of those is also illegal. The two are significantly similar to be considered derivative work.

Basically if the combinations and 1's and 0's you have can not be reasonably expected to be derived from a copyrighted material, and therefore you came up with it on your own independently (or from free/open sources) then it is legal... simple as that.

> We can prove this by simply looking at the economic goods matrix. Thoughts (or specifics orderings of 1s and 0s) are neither excludable nor rivalrous. Therefore as a class they cannot exist as private property.

Since your axiom above is wrong this and the rest of your statement is by extension wrong as it builds the argument upon your axiom.

@herag @null0x0 @Albright

@lupyuen QBasic is the only embedded language for me ::blows dust off his old parallax chip:: :)

@lucifargundam @zpartacoos @uncapybarable @tek

Ok so the verdict is in. Standard mac and cheese sauce (mild soft cheddar + milk + butter) is amazing on spaghetti. Only thing is due to the increased surface area of the spaghetti you need to up the ratio of milk somewhat to get a bit more liquid sauce. Otherwise it was fantastic.

@cwebber I'm glad to hear that, I do too.

From my perspective it was unexpected, and i suppose that can be mometarily jarring when i saw the first post. But beyond that it didnt really change my perspective of you, other than respecting your honesty. So to me it seems a good thing, nothing **to** hate.

@cwebber Best of luck to you, I hope it hasnt gotten you any hate. Either way I respect the bravery and honesty in what you are trying to do. Rock on.

@herag

Nah I completely support IP law enforced by the threat of gun and legal consequences. I just have no problem with people breaking the law when the conditions under which IP is sold is not reasonable. In this case I support IP but not the use of DRM.

@Albright @null0x0

@Albright

everyone has the right to break the law if they are willing to suffer the consequences.

@null0x0

What properties should the bonding curve of a cryptocurrency or fiat demonstrate?

#crypto #economics #fiat #cryptocurrency

Stolen from @null0x0 was too important to just reshare...

@lucifargundam

Being softer noodles I doubt I'd like that. mac and cheese needs nice firm noodles.

@zpartacoos

@lucifargundam

Indeed, in philly it is rather common to use "macaroni" to mean "all pasta"

@zpartacoos

@lucifargundam those are all entierly different beasts... has to be made from melted down safety cones to count!

@zpartacoos yea im talking traditional mac and cheese style sauce (with mild cheddar, butter, and milk) on spaghetti. The ones you mention are entirely different beasts.

but yea the name wouldnt entierly fit.

@uncapybarable all the baked mac and cheese I've had tends to be more like a "pie" (carribean style).. so not sure how that would work with spaghetti.

@realcaseyrollins yea that stuff aint bad! Better than a lot of no sugar drinks for sure.

Why have I never seen mac and cheese done with spaghetti before... I feel like we could be out there living our best lives, but this is the one thing keeping that from happening.