Kawlinz

I chucked it in because I think it's accurate. saying that our feelings are a part of us is like saying the forces of inertia are a part of the ball. the outside forces gives the ball inertia and the ball moves in a direction directly proportional to the outside force. the outside forces give a person desires (and a bunch of other stuff) and the person moves in a direction directly proportional to that outside force.

Any will that we possess would be reactionary, in the same way that when you kick a ball and it moves. Kinda defeats the purpose of calling it will. If I kick a ball at someone's face as hard as i can, you may attribute that to will. But if kicking a ball into someone's face is just a reaction to my surroundings, memories, feelings and senses, then I have as much will as the ball, just doing what I'm doing because of outside forces - no more no less.

Why? I understand it can be, but some people out there are just genuinely nice.

"Oh but theres' gonna be a few bad apples"

what makes you think that I haven't?

Thanks for that, but I guess that's why I didn't understand what it was instinctively. The only thing that's wrong with it is that it doesn't make sense. If you're trying to get pregnant, you wouldn't buy insurance for getting pregnant, because you plan to get pregnant. Maybe you would buy a service that manages everything about your pregnancy for you, so you don't have anything to worry about, but that's not insurance. If we tried a similar type of insurance based on the same types of choices, it seems silly. Like butter insurance - I pay you every month for butter insurance, and if I desire butter and grab some butter at the store or supermarket, you pay for it. If I get more butter than I would've been able to buy with the same amount of money, then you're out money, and your service would disappear. If I get less butter than I would've bought for the same price, then I have no reason for the insurance, I'll just buy it when I need it. Your only customers will be people trying to save money at your expense.

I've loved a lot of Aphex's work, and I share your sentiments about most mental health care professionals. I may have mentioned this before, but I went to two therapists appointed by doctors, and even before they hear any of my concerns, they're talking about the drugs she's recommending for my symptoms. And great excerpts like: Me: I have problems with compliments MHCP: Just accept them Yep

Sorry for being dense but what's maternity insurance?

I'll tell you this, if wanted to wait, you'd pick the therapist. You're also basically asking us if you would rather be more cost efficient or less cost efficient with your money. Weird eh? Sorry this had a lot of my shit in it, I can easily see this not being applicable to many people at all.

The guns in charge might say we are taxed by representation, but no one can represent me without my consent - therefore I have no representative. Taxation is by theft.

I meant - see how far they get [with getting the government to put down the gun]

Silly mortal! thinking you're important enough to test the almighty, for him to show himself just because you want answers! He work in mysterious ways!

Right, saying you've made an original when it's a copy of someone else's work is fraud. Fraud is different to what i think about when I hear the word copyright or IP. if that's your stance, then yeah, complete agreement.

I agree with that. If I forced you to make a painting for me because I wanted one, possibly to sell, I'd be profiting from your labour without your consent. If you paint a picture and i take it, I'd be profiting from your labour without your consent. i think copying your painting is different. If you paint a picture, I see it without being a part of some sort of agreement, then I do my own work to recreate that painting (whether I paint it myself, take a picture and create prints) I'm not profiting from your labour, I'm profiting from mine. Your labour is separate from the idea your labour represents. Copying is not taking your labour, it's taking the idea. My point also rest on a simple concept which I've stated: Ideas can be freely copied. Notice it's not "Idea's should be free to copy". I'm not prescribing anything, i'm describing what happens in the world. The moment I see your painting, I have a copy in my brain - no force. I've still not seen a good reason that I shouldn't be able to profit from an idea in my head, even if it originated with you.

Everything doesn't work, because there are people who aren't a part of the contract that can hear or see the physical representation of the idea. Ideas can be freely copied. That's what I start with. I don't have to use force or aggression to sense an idea that originated from someone else, and copy it. I quoted your post, and you're none-the-worse off. If ideas can't be freely copied, I need to see the reasoning. who said you can't profit from your labour? And why would being able to recreate a piece of art without seeing the original be a big deal? it depends on the work, the more complex the work, the less likely. If we're talking about a poster, does the "original copy" have to be pixel perfect? or does it have to have the same theme? same colour scheme? same subject matter? Let's I paint a pink star on a psychedelic tye dye background. I personally haven't seen this, but it's a simple enough concept. You might be able to point to a similar painting. It might be pretty close. I don't think it's gonna be a pixel perfect, but that's generally not the accuracy that copyright or IP states is necessary for infringing on a work. even if you had a piece of artwork that was SOOO original that no one could have done it after you without having seen yours - so what? let's say it's the case - why when you've made the artwork, can I not use the IDEA behind the artwork? Why can I not replicate it? your labour isn't mine to have. if you make a painting, it's yours. If you build a deck, it's yours. What I don't think is logical is saying "Since I've created this painting/deck, no one can recreate this pattern of a painting or deck without my say so".

Or tie the contract to the labour used (service provided) rather than the ownership of a song. I'm getting pretty good at this

You could easily ask for the payment up front... problem solved. Escrow service... problem solved. Or would that be too simple?

Then my wife is complicit in fraud for asking those questions, yeah?

I'm not reverting to pragmatics. How is the download complicit in fraud? It's different, because in one case, someone's securing their secrets in a lab, and the other is letting 2 million people look at their secrets anonymously for a fee and crying fowl when the 3rd million people learn those secrets without paying. I didn't say the musician wants me to pirate, I say they can't say they don't want people to pirate it with a straight face if they use the exact same model that every other pirated album has used. It's been proven not to be effective at keeping their documents out of the hands of people who don't pay for them. If I have a secret fetish that I don't want my wife to know about, but I tell her best friend sally who gossips when she drinks, and she drinks a lot, even if sally agrees to not tell anyone, how justified could I be in my anger when sally tells my wife? When sally's blabbered my last 5 secrets? Even if my wife asks sally if i'm hiding any secrets, it's up to sally to tell her. My wife wouldn't be complicit in fraud simply for asking about any information, because she's not the one who made an agreement with me. It would just be an excuse for me to be mad at someone for MY mistake. I can't tell sally secrets without her blabbering, and I can't contract with millions of anonymous people and blame them when my album gets pirated. I don't have a contract with any musician. I am a musician. I've looked over the issue. When I release my first album, the title would probably shock you as to how much I believe in what I'm saying to you right now. And no, I can't tell you the name of the album, because of how much I believe in what I'm saying. That is, If I truly want something to be a secret, I can't tell a single fucking soul.

i guess I'm still wondering why bring the word copyright. If copyright is the contractual agreement, and copyright violation is fraud, why not just use the words contractual agreement and fraud? Is there something different between a contractual agreement and a copyright? This is what I'm saying pirating music is like. Imagine if most business owners had secret formulas, and they decided to keep them secret by making millions of copies of these formulas, put them in stores, and sell them to people anonymously. Even if customers agree not to copy them, some do. Time and time again, these business owners see that this model of keeping secrets doesn't work. Can we really say that the business owners have a strong interest in keeping their secret formulas secret? Even if they choose models that are proven not to work, and allow anonymous "contracts"? So why is every musician contracting with people who will violate their agreements? Musicians can't say with a straight face that they don't want their music pirated, and at the same time contract with millions of people on an anonymous basis.

I don't see the issue with downloading pirated music. I'm not a part of the agreement, so if I download something available online, I'm rearranging my property in a way that's more enjoyable for me. Sure, the person who put it up might be engaging in some sort of fraud, or someone before them, but replicating a concept is not taking property, nor is it engaging in fraud. If someone says they won't make copies of your work, you give them a copy of your work, and they in turn copy it, then you have a fraud issue. I don't see why you need the word copyright to explain the same thing. To me it's like when you ask someone what they mean by "God" and they reply "God is everything"... then we don't need the word God. Maybe for simplicity sake, you could write out a few "rights" (for lack of a better word at the moment) that you think a copyright holder would have. If copyright isn't just a synonym for fraud, what additional properties would a copyright violation have that regular ol' fraud doesn't?

I think it's just easier to say "fraud is wrong" than to say "copyright is valid", because of the two very different meanings of the word copyright.

I've already said that I agree with this much, if you make an agreement before the purchase not to do certain things with that piece of property, then you're bound by the terms you agreed to. I think the confusion is my not quoting your entire first passage, where you say there are two ways copyright violation occurs today. The first is the one where people implicitly or explicitly agree to not make copies or distribute certain materials. This I agree with. The other side of copyright violation is if I haven't made that agreement and I hear a song or see a video outside of any agreement, copyrights say that i can't duplicate or recreate that idea, even when I haven't agreed to any such terms. It's not fraud if you haven't agreed. You've made the analogy of the car thief, but i don't think it holds up. Lets say you wrote a song. Then you made an agreement with your friend doug that he could enjoy the song you wrote, if he promised/agreed/contracted not to let anyone else hear it. Doug then makes this song heard to me... either he sings along out loud while listening on headphones, or he plays it in his back yard while he's tanning on his patio. I don't see any argument you could make that says "Since doug agreed to not let anyone hear my song in any form, you kawlinz, can not arrange your property in a way I think is too close to the way I've arranged mine." Wheras I can see an argument that says "kawlinz, you can't use that car because it's mine, and someone stole it from me to sell to you. Here's your money back. sorry for the confusion."

With the land you purchased, you made an agreement to pay for the cathedral roof insurance. There might be agreements in the future that say you can't turn your house into an all night disco, but that's also handled by agreement. I've made no agreements to the effect of "If I hear your song I can't make a copy of it" or "I'll never configure my property to make it sound like property you own"

People would say "WTF?! I'm not paying another cent to this company, there must be a more responsible alternative"