indeed, the first step (IMO) towards revising the notion is to recognize that physical (material, tangible) assets inherently work differently than digital assets.
As I understand so far the main reason to seek a revision of the concept of ownership is exactly due to the existence (enabled by internet technology) of digital assets.
copy-pasting is HOW computers work. copy-pasting does not do well in society ruled by the exclusivity-mindset inherent to marketplaces (and their societies) of tangible assets
but what about people getting paid for the invested money of movies made by their ancestors, dead over 50 years ago (and up to more than 100 years ago, whatever is the current copyright term for movies)
do they have a right to enjoy being rewarded for work they didn't do but their ancestors did?
if the intention of those laws was to encourage creativity, how come they're stiffing it more than encouraging without any signs of any government trying to correct the laws to better match their purported intentions?
well yea, because your parents were essentially slaves, the property of higher elite classes. I'm pointing to the class relationship, nothing specific to your parents.
I wonder if such practices were used in schools reserved for royalty and other nobles in the UK
depends on how close you wanna get to the servers, and then the hardware?
I suppose it's a super rare occurrence now, but back when I was starting on this, I would mess up my X server and was forced to fix it from the command line.
I wish I could study (and explain) those 19KB of javascript (and including the rest of the locked down software stack taken for granted) as the sheet music that I take them to be from a fully academic music-technological standpoint.
but I don't want a bend over backwards to have to do this. oh well.
I wanna bend over backwards as I do it, from the very hardware (intel x86) all the way to the sound and back down the stack again. going through (or across??) the ADC and DAC cards and all that. I would never finish, so I wouldn't be allowed to start in any typical academic programs.
I think within the academia is the only place this could possibly be brought up.
> I was not really conscious throughout most of it.
I disagree. hear me out. I think you were just using a non-linguistic mode of consciousness.
We are far too accustomed to thinking and being (and imagining that we are) made out of words, or things that can be put into words. But I have chosen to believe that this is merely one amongst various others ways to think.
Language is a tool. A human being is not made out of words (from a language). Nonetheless, a lot of what we imagine ourselves to be is made out of words (from a language).
Let's not keep on making the mistake that what we are is something that can be *completely* put into words.
because this is not an analysis of computing in general. but an analysis about a specific use-case of computers in general: video games; written in response to microsoft's gobbling up of activision
clearly I need to learn more about stock ownership; but that would require the opportunity to own stock. And I'm from a secondary/lower socioeconomic-tier from a 3rd tier (third world country). So those opportunities aren't readily available to me.
regardless,
the restrictions on trade of physical goods exists due to matters of ownership over government-level permissions (licenses?) for import/export, taxation, an other such kinds of things. It's ownership over whole countries; that's the ownership at play when considering digital trade restrictions.
because digital assets have a fundamental difference with material ones.
I'm referring to how digital assets can be owned non-exclusively, i.e. we can both have the same data.
In contrast material (or physical) assets are exclusive. Either I have it xOR you do, we cannot both own the same thing.
Stocks (and other sophisticated goods) are interesting because they mean we each own a fraction of something, even when that object cannot actually be easily split. But notice how there's still a sense of exclusivity; the same stock cannot be owned by multiple people at the same time.
As I understand so far the main reason to seek a revision of the concept of ownership is exactly due to the existence (enabled by internet technology) of digital assets.
copy-pasting is HOW computers work. copy-pasting does not do well in society ruled by the exclusivity-mindset inherent to marketplaces (and their societies) of tangible assets