--- Log opened Wed Oct 25 00:00:28 2017 --- Day changed Wed Oct 25 2017 20171025 00:00:28-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 00:08:07< wesnoth-discord-> @Munisylc @Pentarctagon Ah, that's a shame. Thanks for the info though. 20171025 00:27:41-!- celmin [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 00:27:41-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has quit [Disconnected by services] 20171025 00:27:41-!- celmin is now known as celticminstrel 20171025 00:40:05-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20171025 00:58:57-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@cpe-71-68-228-59.sc.res.rr.com] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20171025 00:59:52-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@2606:a000:7947:5000:d8f3:69d2:2461:d02c] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 01:28:20-!- janebot [~Gambot@unaffiliated/gambit/bot/gambot] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20171025 01:28:27-!- janebot [~Gambot@unaffiliated/gambit/bot/gambot] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 01:29:44-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 01:35:01-!- THERetroGamerNY [~THERetroG@pool-108-55-4-217.bflony.fios.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: Be blessed!] 20171025 01:49:20-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20171025 01:49:47-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 01:58:55< wesnoth-discord-> Are there general guidelines for balancing units? I'm trying to kinda roll my own, but if there's an existing framework that's used to balance things it would be good to know 20171025 02:16:51-!- vultraz [uid24821@wesnoth/developer/vultraz] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 02:39:12-!- celmin [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 02:39:12-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has quit [Disconnected by services] 20171025 02:39:12-!- celmin is now known as celticminstrel 20171025 02:40:30< wesnoth-discord-> I'm currently just running a model where I consider damage based on average predicted damage per potential point (ie multiply by hit chance, multiply by 100%-resistance), but it obviously has issues since hits do discrete integer amounts of damage 20171025 02:42:12< wesnoth-discord-> I think balancing becomes pretty clear if you just play with the units you make 20171025 02:42:26< wesnoth-discord-> sometimes you recruit certain units and they just suck 20171025 02:42:33< wesnoth-discord-> while others are very strong 20171025 02:42:53< wesnoth-discord-> you also need to consider cost 20171025 02:43:01< wesnoth-discord-> a unit can be weaker, but cost much less as well 20171025 02:46:14< wesnoth-discord-> yeah, but the problem is im not a good player- I highly undervalued skirmisher when I initially made the units, and im pretty sure part of the reason is that I couldn't really use them effectively. Being able to some calculations to at least see if I'm in the ballpark of reasonable is kinda necessary. 20171025 02:54:21-!- ArneBab_ [~quassel@freenet/developer/arnebab] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 02:58:41-!- ArneBab [~quassel@freenet/developer/arnebab] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 20171025 03:09:52-!- APic [apic@apic.name] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 20171025 03:15:28-!- APic [apic@apic.name] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 03:19:25< wesnoth-discord-> Hi, there was a formula for balance in ageless i think, its not the best but it existed.. 20171025 03:19:54< wesnoth-discord-> i imagine a crucial part of the "stuff" that goes into balancing would be centered around the math of stuff 20171025 03:20:38< wesnoth-discord-> rounding really makes a difference in damage, for example when stuff goes from 6-3 to 7-3, with a time of day bonus the damage really spikes 20171025 03:20:59< wesnoth-discord-> and damage values factor into how many hits it takes to kill a unit 20171025 03:21:12< wesnoth-discord-> for example, orcs have a much easier time rushing with strong grunts instead of not-strong grunts 20171025 03:21:45< wesnoth-discord-> since 12-2 hits tend to kill stuff in fewer hits than 11-2 20171025 03:22:38< wesnoth-discord-> and then you must consider that units are balanced inside factions to be balanced against other factions, on maps for eras of these factions to be played on 20171025 03:23:05< wesnoth-discord-> so for your map design there are considerations like how far the vills are apart, how many vills there are, what terrain types there are etc 20171025 03:23:18< wesnoth-discord-> tough stuff :l 20171025 03:24:13< wesnoth-discord-> you do not need to overthink it that much sice there are positive and negative bonuses 20171025 03:24:58< wesnoth-discord-> also depends on era, and many abilities are hard to quantify, balancing units through raw styats comparison to other units from eras known to be balanced is a good way to start 20171025 03:25:15< wesnoth-discord-> that's a lot of what I've been doing 20171025 03:25:50< wesnoth-discord-> but I mean even there I have some question- consider human spearmen vs goblin rousers 20171025 03:25:52-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@2606:a000:7947:5000:d8f3:69d2:2461:d02c] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20171025 03:26:11< wesnoth-discord-> or you pit ai against each other to see if it's 50/50. :V 20171025 03:26:26< wesnoth-discord-> i don't think it would be "overthinking" things tbh. for example when i recruit a cav, i am always happy that he's strong - and i don't miss the other possible traits at night, even if he does 5-3 just like a not-strong cav 20171025 03:26:27< wesnoth-discord-> 13g for goblin rouser is a fair cost xD 20171025 03:26:52< wesnoth-discord-> because time of day bonuses are more important than maluses imo 20171025 03:27:12< wesnoth-discord-> Human spearman have a 7-3 melee, and a 6-1 ranged 20171025 03:27:27< wesnoth-discord-> with average traits considered, that becomes 7.5-3 20171025 03:27:28< wesnoth-discord-> also, rounding is not just from time of day. poachers don't do extra damage with the -10% pierce resist on a lot of drake units 20171025 03:27:38< wesnoth-discord-> if they did it would be different 20171025 03:27:40< wesnoth-discord-> pitching ai is not the best way of doing it, if you are comparring stats well and know what you are doing you should have a decently balanced era 20171025 03:28:05< wesnoth-discord-> not necessarily, but it depends on units 20171025 03:28:13< wesnoth-discord-> goblin impalers have an 8-3 melee, but 7.66 with traits 20171025 03:28:17< wesnoth-discord-> and even if the difference is rather minimal 20171025 03:28:30< wesnoth-discord-> and a 5-1 ranged 20171025 03:28:50< wesnoth-discord-> but spearmen also have a move advantage of 5.5 to 4.66 20171025 03:28:59< wesnoth-discord-> get to the point 20171025 03:29:41< wesnoth-discord-> and an hp advantage of 36 plus half resilient to impaler's 26 , which ends up being basically the same but with 50% more hp and levelling potential 20171025 03:29:53< wesnoth-discord-> 50% more hp for 1 gold seems weird 20171025 03:30:30< wesnoth-discord-> esp. when combined with a move advantage and levelling 20171025 03:30:31< wesnoth-discord-> that 50% is not as much as you make it sound 20171025 03:30:39< wesnoth-discord-> even if your math is right 20171025 03:30:43< wesnoth-discord-> when you consider that goblin impalers and rousers are not able to be recruited in default era (which i assume the game is balanced for), it is a little strange 20171025 03:30:48< wesnoth-discord-> it may be 10 hp advantage whatever 20171025 03:31:01< wesnoth-discord-> goblin rouser deals more damage than spearman 20171025 03:31:15< wesnoth-discord-> since it has lesser chance of getting weak than spear getting strong 20171025 03:31:17< wesnoth-discord-> but the gold values of such units are balanced for AI use when AI is recruiting it in things like campaigns (i think) 20171025 03:31:34< wesnoth-discord-> and also rouser has leadership 20171025 03:31:39< wesnoth-discord-> and there is a pretty good empirical evidence that 13g is good 20171025 03:31:42< wesnoth-discord-> impaler 20171025 03:31:42-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@2606:a000:7947:5000:3418:b312:90e7:c338] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 03:32:05< wesnoth-discord-> you said rousers a while back lol 20171025 03:32:15< wesnoth-discord-> in plan your recruits armageddon tournament goblin rouser was a valid pick but it wasnt overpowered, at least so it looked 20171025 03:32:23< wesnoth-discord-> hp is less important than damage 20171025 03:32:24< wesnoth-discord-> well, still different units that have different functions in different factions 20171025 03:32:36< wesnoth-discord-> @ex nihilo ik i tried to correct it 20171025 03:32:38< wesnoth-discord-> not really good to just compare based on raw stats imo 20171025 03:33:00< wesnoth-discord-> maybe useful for a starting point 20171025 03:33:02< wesnoth-discord-> but the issue is that on average impalers don't actually do much more damage 20171025 03:33:07< wesnoth-discord-> but i wouldn't trust it that much 20171025 03:33:21< wesnoth-discord-> i thought it was impaler too 20171025 03:33:26< wesnoth-discord-> half of spearmen have strong, and then a third of impalers have weak 20171025 03:33:30< wesnoth-discord-> im not very good with english names of obscuredu nits 20171025 03:34:46< wesnoth-discord-> they do 1/3 of a point of damage more on average, move 5/6 of a hex less on average, and have 1/3 less hp- a one gold difference seems like its hugely undervaluing hp, and im not sure why 20171025 03:34:55< wesnoth-discord-> 1 g advantage is pretty significant and they do quite a lot of damage 20171025 03:35:12< wesnoth-discord-> wait or am i talking shit... 20171025 03:35:18< wesnoth-discord-> i'd say it's prob just balanced that way for some campaign that has the AI recruit impalers 20171025 03:35:32< wesnoth-discord-> strong spearmen do as much as an impaler 20171025 03:35:33< wesnoth-discord-> i will check if rouser was really for 13 g in PYRA 20171025 03:35:40< wesnoth-discord-> it may have been 11 20171025 03:35:41< wesnoth-discord-> weak impalers do as much as a normal spearman 20171025 03:35:47< wesnoth-discord-> either way i remember it was balanced 20171025 03:36:10< wesnoth-discord-> impalers and rousers are both 13 20171025 03:36:10< wesnoth-discord-> so you might be right since 13 g does sound a bit weird but i am not sure 20171025 03:37:52< wesnoth-discord-> if that is true then a more accurate is comparing it with grunt 20171025 03:38:02< wesnoth-discord-> I'm also pretty sure that impalers and spearmen fulfill similar roles in both factions- they reason I chose these two is that they're practically identical in terms of attacks 20171025 03:38:22< wesnoth-discord-> the melee is firststrike, something-3, and they both have a something-1 ranged attack 20171025 03:38:30< wesnoth-discord-> the damage values are incredibly close 20171025 03:38:31< wesnoth-discord-> btw i meant impaler.. 20171025 03:38:38< wesnoth-discord-> the defenses are the same 20171025 03:38:44< wesnoth-discord-> the resistances are the dsame 20171025 03:39:16< wesnoth-discord-> Nearly everything is the same, except spearmen get nearly a move more on average, and get waay more hp 20171025 03:39:20< wesnoth-discord-> rouser is balanced for 13 20171025 03:39:38< wesnoth-discord-> since possibility of lvl 0 leadership, else it would be overpriced 20171025 03:39:42< wesnoth-discord-> impaler is balanced for 11 20171025 03:39:55< wesnoth-discord-> but impaler costs 13 20171025 03:40:05< wesnoth-discord-> https://units.wesnoth.org/1.12/mainline/en_US/Goblin%20Impaler.html 20171025 03:40:15< wesnoth-discord-> then its wrong since in default impaler is not recruitable anyway 20171025 03:40:27< wesnoth-discord-> costs of higher level units and unrecruitable units in default mean very little 20171025 03:40:32< wesnoth-discord-> they are usually not balanced 20171025 03:41:10< wesnoth-discord-> right, but the issue is that rousers and impalers both advance from the same unit- if one is worth more than the other, there's no real reason to ever pick impaler 20171025 03:41:27< wesnoth-discord-> like i said the cost is wrong 20171025 03:41:43< wesnoth-discord-> and also impaler has stronger stats than rouser 20171025 03:41:58< wesnoth-discord-> rouser is only good if it surviuves and gives you value by leading lvl 0s like goblins 20171025 03:42:34< wesnoth-discord-> in multiplayer in almost all cases in practice impaler is better because way higher damage, a bit less hp but usually its not expected to survive for very long anyway 20171025 03:45:54< wesnoth-discord-> raw stats comparison works for most units but abilities are harder to quantify 20171025 03:46:08< wesnoth-discord-> if you compared rouser to grunt, well it seems pretty good 20171025 03:46:11< wesnoth-discord-> for the cost 20171025 03:46:20< wesnoth-discord-> if it costs 11 20171025 04:29:25< wesnoth-discord-> I guess that makes sense- I was just expecting things to be balanced based on price due to the campain design doc http://www.catb.org/~esr/wesnoth/campaign-design-howto.html#_balance_and_difficulty 20171025 04:36:58-!- celticminstrel [~celmin@unaffiliated/celticminstrel] has quit [Quit: KABOOM! It seems that I have exploded. Please wait while I reinstall the universe.] 20171025 05:12:05< wesnoth-discord-> Overall balance of units in campaigns does not matter that much since you can set arbitrary ai recruits and give any amount of gold. Rather its about balance of the particular campaign, for example sometimes there are some especially strong high level units you can get that make the campaign easier than it should be, the first example that comes to my mind is shadowm removing sylphs from his campaign xD 20171025 05:50:03-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@2606:a000:7947:5000:3418:b312:90e7:c338] has quit [Quit: Leaving] 20171025 05:50:22-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@2606:a000:7947:5000:3418:b312:90e7:c338] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 06:07:43-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@2606:a000:7947:5000:3418:b312:90e7:c338] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 20171025 06:08:42-!- synthpopisback [~synthpopi@2606:a000:7947:5000:641d:f5bf:f2d3:641] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 06:36:37-!- Haudegen [~quassel@178.115.237.87] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 07:02:49< janebot> wesnoth: Battle Brothers, a turn-based tactical RPG very similar to Wesnoth, is on sale right now on Steam! (by /u/Thanmarkou) https://redd.it/78m1jq 20171025 08:14:42-!- zookeeper [~lmsnie@wesnoth/developer/zookeeper] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 08:34:40< Necrosporus> Is it free as in freedom? 20171025 08:35:07< wesnoth-discord-> No. And it's not free in price either. 20171025 08:38:08< Necrosporus> Non-zero price is not bad, as long as for that price you get complete source code, which you can freely build for any machine, modify, share your mods and so on 20171025 08:39:27< wesnoth-discord-> Libraries are sometimes disributed that way, but for games it's extremely rare. You can assume that games are closed-source by default. 20171025 08:40:48< Necrosporus> You mean like Qt before switching to LGPL? 20171025 08:41:02< wesnoth-discord-> Yes. 20171025 08:46:28-!- vultraz [uid24821@wesnoth/developer/vultraz] has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity] 20171025 09:36:31-!- vladimirslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-cazroqnyruwffgvh] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 09:46:05-!- vladimirslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-cazroqnyruwffgvh] has quit [Changing host] 20171025 09:46:05-!- vladimirslavik [vslavik@wesnoth/translator/VladimirSlavik] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 10:25:22< wesnoth-discord-> @Necrosporus "Non-zero price is not bad, as long as for that price you get complete source code, which you can freely build for any machine, modify, share your mods and so on" So much this. Paying for a game doesn't bother me at all, it's just the lack of intellectual freedom that I find an issue. 20171025 11:23:38< DeFender1031> Can someone, without judgement, antagonism, or getting holier-than-thou about it, explain to me why you hold it as an ethical reality that paying for a piece of software should entitle you to recieve the code and ability to modify it as well, and in what way it differs from buying a bottle of coke not entitling you to knowledge about coke's secret ingredient? (Or perhaps it doesn't differ, and you also believe that buying a food 20171025 11:23:39< DeFender1031> item SHOULD entitle you to the recipe as well, in which case I'm still curious about the foundation of that belief.) 20171025 11:25:07< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, @Andrettin, ^^^ 20171025 11:25:42< vladimirslavik> DeFender1031, the belief is that it *should*, as the ideal, not that it *must* - with the source you are not effectively locked out 20171025 11:25:50< vladimirslavik> at least for me 20171025 11:25:56< wesnoth-discord-> exactly 20171025 11:26:03< wesnoth-discord-> that, and copyright terms are completely unreasonable 20171025 11:26:20< DeFender1031> That's not what I'm asking 20171025 11:26:21< wesnoth-discord-> 70 years after the death of the last author? it's crazy 20171025 11:26:42< DeFender1031> I mean, what is the ethical basis of the idea of Free Software as a value? 20171025 11:26:49< vladimirslavik> there's also the difference in scope between using a bottle of coke (drink it or not) and using software (shape your workflow around it) 20171025 11:26:58< wesnoth-discord-> I think coke is a bad analogy. it's not a tool 20171025 11:27:12< DeFender1031> @sapient_n3t neither is a game. 20171025 11:27:47< vladimirslavik> DeFender1031, what about a spreadsheet editor then... 20171025 11:28:12< vladimirslavik> free software is a means of empowering the public (users), just as democracy 20171025 11:28:13< DeFender1031> vladimirslavik, so it's out of a desire to, as a default, be able to tailor the software you use to your own needs? 20171025 11:29:16< wesnoth-discord-> with free software the time invested in coding a particular program doesn't only improve that program itself... it provides code (or a code example) for everyone else, for all time 20171025 11:29:27< vladimirslavik> DeFender1031, that's how programmers would phrase it, but it's not all 20171025 11:29:42< wesnoth-discord-> being unable to edit my game is not as big of a loss as being unable to edit a critical tool, so you're right on that. 20171025 11:29:43< wesnoth-discord-> meanwhile, knowledge kept closed-source dies 20171025 11:29:50< vladimirslavik> the ideal is that you have a chance to effect a change - as opposed to being subject to someone else's terms 20171025 11:30:04< wesnoth-discord-> yup 20171025 11:30:05< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, I think that buying food AT LEAST entitles you to know complete list of ingredients 20171025 11:30:10< DeFender1031> vladimirslavik, I'm not sure it's similar. The public is already completely free to create whatever software they want (well, leaving patent laws aside anyway, which is a whole other pandoras box of worms). 20171025 11:30:26< Necrosporus> Which is already required by law in some countries, by the way 20171025 11:31:02< vladimirslavik> the requirement for source is just a logical prerequisite to that (my previous message) 20171025 11:31:20< wesnoth-discord-> I agree 20171025 11:31:35< wesnoth-discord-> and a project being open-source gives it a greater chance to survive the test of time 20171025 11:31:43< wesnoth-discord-> Wesnoth is a great example of that 20171025 11:31:59< wesnoth-discord-> how many games released at the same time as Wesnoth 1.0.0 are still being improved on nowadays? 20171025 11:32:13< wesnoth-discord-> TBH, Wesnoth is barely surviving at the moment. There is critical shortage of developers. 20171025 11:32:54< vladimirslavik> re wesnoth status of being developed - I think it is feature-complete in a way, so there is not much to work on 20171025 11:33:33< vladimirslavik> DeFender1031 let me also say that I see no reason to forbid closed software - but open software is the choice that benefits everyone 20171025 11:34:41< DeFender1031> But I'm still not feeling like any of this is answering my question, (or perhaps my question is making an assumption that isn't true, but let me try again). It seems that, at least a lot of people, hold Free Software to be as much of a fundamental ethical value as Free Speech. I'm trying to understand the basis for it being an ETHICAL matter. Everything you guys are saying so far are the POSITIVE EFFECTS Free Software can bring, 20171025 11:34:42< DeFender1031> but are not related to a fundamental ETHICS. Am I making any sense? 20171025 11:34:55-!- Appleman1234 [~quassel@124x38x163x22.ap124.ftth.ucom.ne.jp] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 20171025 11:35:21< vladimirslavik> DeFender1031, I think I understand your question, but fail to get across the why 20171025 11:36:08< wesnoth-discord-> I don't agree that positive effects are not connected to ethics 20171025 11:36:25< wesnoth-discord-> I see an ethical action as one that brings the greatest utility for the greatest number of people 20171025 11:37:11< vladimirslavik> I would add to that, equally important as increasing utility is preventing decrease of utility 20171025 11:37:23< DeFender1031> I could also provide counter-arguments the value of the positive effects that have been shared thusfar, but my purpose at the moment is to understand, not to debate. Not looking to change anyone's mind except for perhaps my own. 20171025 11:37:34< vladimirslavik> fair enough :) 20171025 11:37:50< vladimirslavik> free speech = the powers that be can't persecute you just for saying they're doing it wrong 20171025 11:38:29< vladimirslavik> free software = the ones in power can't persecute or discriminate you for... not bringing in profit 20171025 11:38:36< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, for food: some people have certain phylosophical ideas and physiological conditions which affects their food choices in different way. Knowing composition of food is prerequisite for them to be able to decide whenever they should or should not buy and consume said food 20171025 11:38:58< Necrosporus> Like vegans, allergics and christians 20171025 11:39:04< wesnoth-discord-> @Andrettin It's not required for an action to be ethically right that it would be the best action from the utilitarian standpoint. 20171025 11:39:30-!- vladimirslavik is now known as vladimirslavik_l 20171025 11:39:47< vladimirslavik_l> (gotta run to get some food, sorry to leave in the middle) 20171025 11:41:18< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, for software: knowing its recipe might be prerequise to decide whenever you should or should not run it. For example if software has sources you can grep for file access functions and see whenever it tries to access files it should not (and I know that's weak argument, but with source it's still easier to check whenever software is harmful or not) 20171025 11:41:57< Necrosporus> In case if you discover weird behavior, source might be prerequisite to find out why it happens 20171025 11:42:14< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, again, these are all positive effects, not fundamental ethical cores. 20171025 11:42:34< wesnoth-discord-> In practice, investigating an unfamiliar codebase is so difficult that AFAIK literally no one does it. 20171025 11:42:48< Necrosporus> For fundamental ethical cores you perhaps should read Stallman's essays? 20171025 11:42:55< Necrosporus> jyrkive, I did it with Wesnoth 20171025 11:43:30< Necrosporus> You was not always familiar with its codebase either 20171025 11:43:46< wesnoth-discord-> Did you read the code in order to determine if it's safe to run? 20171025 11:44:17< DeFender1031> Can we please NOT debate this tangent? Like I said, my purpose is to understand. 20171025 11:44:25< Necrosporus> No. I agree that doing security audit singlehandedly is not easy 20171025 11:44:27< zookeeper> DeFender1031, are you sure people really hold it to be an ethical fundamental, and not just such a nice thing that their opinion comes across as one? 20171025 11:44:33< DeFender1031> I really don't want this turning into a heated argument. 20171025 11:45:00< wesnoth-discord-> Well, I'm afraid this topic is a complete minefield... 20171025 11:45:01< DeFender1031> zookeeper, well that's what I meant by "perhaps my question is making an assumption that isn't true" 20171025 11:45:06< DeFender1031> zookeeper, I DON'T know for sure. 20171025 11:45:15< zookeeper> right, okay :p 20171025 11:45:27< DeFender1031> It certainly seems that way for at leassst a large portion of the more militant FOSS people. 20171025 11:46:02< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, the answer is that some people see software freedom as basic ethical value and others do not. Same goes with freedom of speech and other political freedoms as well. Not everyone believes in freedom of speech either 20171025 11:46:08< DeFender1031> @jyrkive, indeed. Which is why I'm trying to be really careful to just keep an open mind and listen rather than counter the things people are saying 20171025 11:46:26< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, that's true as well, but still not my point. 20171025 11:46:36< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, let me give you an example. 20171025 11:47:29< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, can you answer your own question, but replacing software freedom with freedom of speech? Then perhaps answer to your original question which would be satisfying for you could be modelled after that 20171025 11:47:32< DeFender1031> And I will ask that people simply accept the example as an example and not as an invitation for more debate. 20171025 11:47:39< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, no. 20171025 11:48:21< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, the thing is, there are many ethical values that people hold that I don't particularly agree with, but I can understand the source of the ethical belief despite not agreeing with it. 20171025 11:49:19< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, I can answer about my ethical values, but their are not equal to those of RMS for example. Would such answer help, given it's not universally applicable? 20171025 11:49:39< DeFender1031> I don't particularly believe that people have a "right to healthcare" when it's paid for by someone else. I can, however, UNDERSTAND the moral basis that says that it's more important to ensure that people have healthcare than to allow people to keep their money. 20171025 11:49:47< wesnoth-discord-> Here is Wikipedia's summary about this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement#Subgroups_and_schisms 20171025 11:50:04< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, sure, I'd love to hear your viewpoint. 20171025 11:50:26 * zookeeper thinks that high-level ethical values are silly 20171025 11:50:33< Necrosporus> My value is not software freedom by itself. It's rather that: device should obey its owner 20171025 11:50:41< DeFender1031> My problem is that I don't see any fundamental value that comes from an inalienable right that flows naturally into Free Software. 20171025 11:51:10< Necrosporus> > inalienable right // What is inalienable right in this context? 20171025 11:51:19< wesnoth-discord-> In general, "free software" movement is associated with people who believe that it's an ethical topic, whereas "open source" movement merely believes that public source code and permissive licensing is useful in practice (but not morally required). 20171025 11:51:49< DeFender1031> For example, the three classic examples of inalienable rights (at least in America) are Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. With the healthcare thing, the idea comes directly from Life. I understand it, even if I don't agree. 20171025 11:52:21< DeFender1031> I just don't see how Free Software flows naturally from that KIND of an ethical basis. 20171025 11:52:22< Necrosporus> Then software freedom comes from liberty probably 20171025 11:52:38< Necrosporus> Why not? 20171025 11:52:47< DeFender1031> zookeeper, what do you mean by "high level ethical values"? 20171025 11:53:09< Necrosporus> It's part of liberty: liberty to control your posession. And computer is your possession. In order to control it you have to control software 20171025 11:54:13< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, the reason that doesn't follow for me is because you already have the liberty to code whatever you want if you have the skills to do so. No one is stopping you from doing so. This seems to be going further by saying that I should have full rights to something that YOU coded. That's not really how liberty works. 20171025 11:54:39< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, to something that you have on your computer 20171025 11:54:45< DeFender1031> Well, you DO control it. You have the option to install or not install something. 20171025 11:55:03< DeFender1031> Though that does create something of a logical paradox. 20171025 11:55:19< Necrosporus> It's not enough. You should have liberty to adjust its behavior to your needs. For example to make sure it doesn't spy on you 20171025 11:55:41< Necrosporus> And you do not necesserily have liberty to not install it 20171025 11:56:01< DeFender1031> Perhaps. 20171025 11:56:18< DeFender1031> I'm beginning to understand. 20171025 11:56:32< Necrosporus> For instance, Intel ME. You cannot uninstall it without rendering computer inoperable (OK actually you could, but not because Intel helped0 20171025 11:56:50< zookeeper> DeFender1031, oh you know, "right to healthcare" for example. it's a very high-level cultural concept that wouldn't even make sense in a lot of more primitive contexts, and is thus not really an ethical value as such, just an approximation that's been derived from lower-level fundamentals. 20171025 11:57:04< DeFender1031> zookeeper, that' 20171025 11:57:06< DeFender1031> ack 20171025 11:57:32< DeFender1031> that's an interesting way of describing it. 20171025 11:59:00< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, also, copyright contradicts liberty by itself, because it limits communications between private parties, such as Alice cannot legally provide Bob a copy of copyrighted work, even if no other parties are concerned at all 20171025 11:59:28< wesnoth-discord-> I don't agree with that argument. 20171025 11:59:31< DeFender1031> I'd argue that it protects liberty. 20171025 11:59:45< DeFender1031> There ARE other parties concerned. 20171025 11:59:46< wesnoth-discord-> Modding this game is ethical, yes? 20171025 12:00:02< DeFender1031> Namely, those whose work is being used without their benefit. 20171025 12:00:14< wesnoth-discord-> If copyright was disallowed by law, then Alice wouldn't have the liberty to make an agreement "Bob can use my software but not redistribute it". 20171025 12:00:21< zookeeper> DeFender1031, i think many commonly-valued rights are very nice and practically useful approximations of making the right ethical choices, but ultimately the concept of rights is... well, nonsensical to me. i try to never use the expression "X has a right to Y" :p 20171025 12:00:24< DeFender1031> Intellectual Property IS an interesting gray area when it comes to liberty though. 20171025 12:00:42< Necrosporus> I thought it was universally accepted, that copyright is compromise on liberty. It was made to stimulate creative works, but it is issentially a compromise 20171025 12:01:17< Necrosporus> If copyright was disallowed by law, then Alice wouldn't have the liberty to make an agreement "Bob can use my software but not redistribute it". // Not actually. Agreement is different from copyright 20171025 12:01:28< Necrosporus> Such agreement is possible without copyrights 20171025 12:01:35< Necrosporus> NDA 20171025 12:01:42< wesnoth-discord-> What exactly do you mean? 20171025 12:02:08< wesnoth-discord-> Any EULA of a closed-source commercial program disallows redistribution. 20171025 12:02:16< Necrosporus> Copyright means limiting options for people who did not sign any contracts at all 20171025 12:02:28< Necrosporus> What if you did not sign an eula? 20171025 12:02:32< DeFender1031> zookeeper, a friend of mine phrases it as "negative rights" e.g. the right NOT to be detained without cause vs. "positive rights" e.g. the right to fresh water. He argues that positive rights are not rights at all, but are "positive good" that we all agree we would like to see in the world, but are not "rights" as such 20171025 12:02:46< Necrosporus> You are still disallowed to distribute, even if you didn't agree to any contracts at all 20171025 12:03:01< wesnoth-discord-> Without signing it, the user doesn't have a privilege to even run the software 20171025 12:03:11< zookeeper> DeFender1031, yeah, i'd generally agree with that distinction. 20171025 12:03:22< Necrosporus> What about blind copying? 20171025 12:04:09< zookeeper> would it make more sense if someone said that they don't think anyone has a right as such to for example the source code of someone else's creation, _but_ that their position is simply that anyone who specifically tries to prevent others from benefiting from their work is being an ass? 20171025 12:04:33< Necrosporus> Such as you work in an agency and provide service to copy various storage devices. A customer brings you disk with windows. You do not use Windows, do not run it, do not know what it is. You simply insert disk in copy machine and give both original and copy to customer 20171025 12:04:45< Necrosporus> Did you just violate copyiright? 20171025 12:04:55< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, problem is that without copyright, I give you something, make you sign not to redistribute it. You violate contract, give it to someone else. That person, not being bound by anything, redistributes it freely to everyone who WOULD be getting it from me, my business falls apart, and you pay a minor fine for having infringed on the contract exactly once. 20171025 12:05:06< zookeeper> now, i don't necessarily have to go out of my way to share my nice things with others, but if i specifically try to prevent it from happening then i'd certainly be a bit of an ass. 20171025 12:05:32< loonycyborg> It's simply impractical to manage what other people do with software 20171025 12:05:41< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, it's irrelevant to ethical values 20171025 12:05:52< Necrosporus> The fact is that copyright limits liberty of those third parties 20171025 12:05:57< loonycyborg> neither government nor anyone else shouldn't even be allowed to regulate it 20171025 12:06:36< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, that's like saying that door locks limit the liberty of someone trying to come in to my house and take something 20171025 12:06:42< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, your example regards practical issues, but not ethical issues 20171025 12:06:58< DeFender1031> ack, no. I'm getting drawn into debate modeand I SPECIFICALLY don't want that. 20171025 12:07:49< loonycyborg> Copyright shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place 20171025 12:07:55< Necrosporus> Yeah. It's why I'm not supplying counter arguments to your example while I could. I just tell that this argument is not relevant to phylosophical definition of liberty 20171025 12:08:06< loonycyborg> It's just a powergrab by Hugo and some other jerks 20171025 12:08:27< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, my point is that intellectual property belongs to the person who created it, and therefore copyright is a protection of THEIR liberty, just like laws that prevent theft or physical property are. 20171025 12:08:40< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus: It's not irrelevant from ethical standpoint. Utilitarianism states that it's ethically right to have legislation that maximizes utility. Copyright exists for that reason: to make it financially profitable to create copyrightable works (games, movies, books, etc.) Hence, copyright is ethically a good thing. 20171025 12:09:02< loonycyborg> I argue that they shouldn't be allowed to have this particular right as their property in the first place 20171025 12:09:11< Necrosporus> Only from utilitarian ethic, but not from libertarianism 20171025 12:09:16< DeFender1031> I think my quest for understanding has gotten derailed... 20171025 12:09:32< zookeeper> @jyrkive, that copyright exists nominally for that reason doesn't mean that it's actually more effective in reaching that goal than not having copyrights would be. that's a pretty big assumption. 20171025 12:09:52< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, do you not believe that intellectual property IS property, with an inherent value to its owner? 20171025 12:09:59< Necrosporus> jyrkive. The point is that copyright contradicts libertarian ethic. Is it agreed upon? 20171025 12:10:35< Necrosporus> There is no such thing as intellectual property at all. There is only a bogus word, which puts several unrelated things to one pile 20171025 12:10:59< DeFender1031> So then the answer is no, you don't believe that it's property. 20171025 12:11:02< Necrosporus> Copyright, patents and trademarks are three different things and should be only discussed separately 20171025 12:11:12< Necrosporus> And they are not property 20171025 12:11:23< Necrosporus> Even though they are called such sometimes 20171025 12:11:38< Necrosporus> And have some properties of property. But not all 20171025 12:11:40< DeFender1031> And with that, I now believe I fully understand the free software ethic. 20171025 12:12:02< DeFender1031> Thank you for helping me understand this. 20171025 12:12:11< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus: no, I don't agree with the claim that copyright contradicts libertarian ethic. I don't view "libertarian ethic" as a point of view that individual liberties are the only thing that matters. 20171025 12:12:58< DeFender1031> @jyrkive, even if you DO, though, you can argue that copyright protects liberty the way anti-theft laws do. 20171025 12:13:13< DeFender1031> (Of course, that only works if you consider intellectual property to be property.) 20171025 12:13:14-!- vladimirslavik_l is now known as vladimirslavik 20171025 12:13:43< DeFender1031> (Once you reject that idea, then yeah, copyright would mean what Necrosporus is saying. Which is why that last bit gave me the understanding I needed.) 20171025 12:14:02< loonycyborg> I think copyright doesn't protect liberty, but does opposite 20171025 12:14:31< Necrosporus> Limit other people liberty as utilitarian compromise 20171025 12:14:37< DeFender1031> loonycyborg, if you don't hold intellectual property to be property, then that WOULD be the ethical conclusion, yes. 20171025 12:14:55< loonycyborg> no, property is red herring in this context 20171025 12:15:03< loonycyborg> it refers only to physical things 20171025 12:15:09< DeFender1031> ... 20171025 12:15:11< DeFender1031> That's my point 20171025 12:15:28< DeFender1031> If you BELIEVE it only refers to physical things, then yes, the conclusion you come to is valid, 20171025 12:15:31< loonycyborg> It shouldn't have brought up in the first place 20171025 12:15:35< zookeeper> well, property (of any kind) is kind of a high-level concept to begin with... 20171025 12:15:46< loonycyborg> word property shouldn't have been used anywhere near here 20171025 12:15:51< DeFender1031> If you accept that there are those who hold intellectual property to be just as much property as physical property, then the opposite is true. 20171025 12:15:52< loonycyborg> because it leads to confusion 20171025 12:16:13< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, by the way, RMS sees that copyright is justified as compromise, but it should be limited. There are some people who think that it should be abolished completely 20171025 12:17:18< loonycyborg> I think it should be abolished 20171025 12:17:45< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, but how can tey hold it be same thing as physicial property if they have almost nothing in common, (except (erroneous) use of same word) 20171025 12:17:53< DeFender1031> Whereas I don't see it as a compromise AT ALL. If you wouldn't mind stipulating, for a moment, that it is possible to believe that intellectual property IS property, then you may be able to stipulate that UNDER THAT BELIEF that copyright would be the exact same thing as laws outlawing theft. 20171025 12:17:55-!- Haudegen [~quassel@178.115.237.87] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer] 20171025 12:18:25< Necrosporus> loonycyborg, but if copyright is abolished, GPL as well won't be enforceable 20171025 12:18:27< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, what they have in common is that they are of intrinsic value to their owner or creator. 20171025 12:18:35< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus: Both physical property and intellectual property are the result of work. 20171025 12:18:43< DeFender1031> Whether there's an actual item involved is immaterial. 20171025 12:18:47< Necrosporus> Not necessarily 20171025 12:18:58< DeFender1031> Yes, what jyrki said. 20171025 12:19:04< Necrosporus> You can get physical property without work 20171025 12:19:15< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, how so? 20171025 12:19:55< Necrosporus> Well, depends on what you call work, but there is property to pieces of Moon surface 20171025 12:20:05< Necrosporus> Or even Earth surface 20171025 12:20:16< wesnoth-discord-> Mining is work as well. 20171025 12:20:32< Necrosporus> But it's property to area 20171025 12:20:42< zookeeper> clearly anyone can see that it's possible to believe that IP is property, there's just no way you could ever logically convince them that that's a true belief. 20171025 12:20:50< loonycyborg> Necrosporus: to be GPL is solely anti-copyright hack. So I don't think anything would be lost with both GPL and copyright are gone 20171025 12:20:56< loonycyborg> *to me 20171025 12:21:23< Necrosporus> loonycyborg, some companies would be able to take GPLed code and make closed source fork 20171025 12:21:39< loonycyborg> without copyright? 20171025 12:21:43< loonycyborg> why would they want to? 20171025 12:21:47< Necrosporus> DRM? 20171025 12:22:00< wesnoth-discord-> I actually do NOT view area as property. Precisely because it was already there and no one has worked for it (exculding the difficulty of travelling to certain places for the first time). 20171025 12:22:05< loonycyborg> Why would they make DRM? 20171025 12:22:14< Necrosporus> I do not say it's a valid concern, I do not think so myself. But there are such concerns 20171025 12:22:24< loonycyborg> To me there aren't 20171025 12:22:32< DeFender1031> zookeeper, my point wasn't to convince them of the belief, simply to convey that the key to the disagreement over whether copyright protects or infringes liberty is fundamentally based on whether you consider IP property or not. 20171025 12:22:39< loonycyborg> DRM and closed source are solely justified by idea of copyright 20171025 12:22:44< zookeeper> DeFender1031, well, sure, of course. 20171025 12:23:02< loonycyborg> even if they exist after it's abolished they'll use a different justification 20171025 12:23:26< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, but nature of copyright does not change, whenever you call it copyright or "property", does it? 20171025 12:23:26< loonycyborg> but it'll be easier to deal with 20171025 12:23:39< loonycyborg> because they couldn't rely on the government to enforce their will 20171025 12:23:42< DeFender1031> @jyrkive then how do you justify, for example, fencing in a yard, or building a house, and preventing other people from entering it? 20171025 12:24:15< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, no, but different people's UNDERSTANDING of it do. 20171025 12:24:25< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, that's the point I'm trying to convey 20171025 12:24:25< wesnoth-discord-> DeFender1031: Simply from a practical standpoint. It would be difficult for the society to operate if it wasn't possible to own land. 20171025 12:24:57< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, but should not ethical values be based on reality instead of terminology? 20171025 12:25:09< Necrosporus> Even if you call copyright "foobarstramhpram" 20171025 12:25:19< Necrosporus> It should still have same ethical qualities 20171025 12:25:22< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, that IF someone considers it property, then the NATURAL CONCLUSION is that copyright is simply preventing theft. If someone considers it not property, then copyright is preventing other people from distributing it. It's really quite simple. 20171025 12:26:05< DeFender1031> @jyrkive so does that mean it IS back to being property? 20171025 12:26:22< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, yes, my point isn't about terminology though. 20171025 12:26:39< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, my point is about what you believe the value of a created work to be. 20171025 12:27:46< wesnoth-discord-> DeFender1031: Yes. People can own areas for practical reasons, and not because they'd be entitled to it as the author or having bought it. 20171025 12:28:04< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, if you believe an intellectual work to have value to its owner like a physical work, then copyright is there to prevent the theft of that work. If you believe an intellectual work to be a form of communication, then copyright prevents communication. 20171025 12:28:52< DeFender1031> @jyrkive, so I'd resolve that by saying that the people who own land do so because of its inherent connection to some work that it on that land (like a house), hence no contradiction. 20171025 12:29:25< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, and what if it's both? 20171025 12:29:35< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, if what's both? 20171025 12:29:54< Necrosporus> intellectual work is both result of work and form of communication? 20171025 12:30:06< DeFender1031> that wasn't the distinction I made. 20171025 12:30:23< DeFender1031> Only an absolute moron would say that intellectual work is not the result of work 20171025 12:30:28< DeFender1031> the distinction was 20171025 12:30:44< DeFender1031> "has value the way a physical work does" vs. "a form of communication" 20171025 12:30:52-!- vladimirslavik [vslavik@wesnoth/translator/VladimirSlavik] has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] 20171025 12:30:54< Necrosporus> By the way, copyright and copyrighted work are two different entitites 20171025 12:31:11< Necrosporus> do not mix it up 20171025 12:31:17< DeFender1031> of course. 20171025 12:31:38< zookeeper> DeFender1031, equating intellectual and physical work doesn't work in that sense. the owner doesn't lose the intrinsic value of their intellectual work if it's copied, unlike if their physical work is stolen. you know, the usual argument, but you did phrase it from the "value to its owner" angle, and from that angle copying still wouldn't qualify as theft because the owner doesn't lose the 20171025 12:31:38< zookeeper> work. 20171025 12:32:14< Necrosporus> Copyright (to certain work) has some value (at least in context of existing laws). Since you can sell it for money and then trade money for physical property 20171025 12:32:27< Necrosporus> Work itself cannot be sold 20171025 12:32:51< Necrosporus> Service of providing a copy of it is service 20171025 12:33:03< DeFender1031> zookeeper, agreed it's not a perfect 1-to-1, but the value I'm referring to is the value that they have in being the one able to share it, not the value in "if someone else has this item, I no longer will". 20171025 12:33:10< Necrosporus> You are providing service, which is not same thing as selling something 20171025 12:33:13< zookeeper> if by value you mean the ability to for example sell access to it for profit then sure, that works, but... yeah. 20171025 12:34:37< Necrosporus> Copyright is closer to weapon license than to physical property, probably 20171025 12:35:20< Necrosporus> For example police can sell weapon licenses, as well as services of certifying individuals that they are physically stable and so on 20171025 12:35:42< Necrosporus> * psychically 20171025 12:35:58< DeFender1031> zookeeper, the two CAN be brought back into the same realm again with the following thought experiment though: imagine we had molecular scanners and replicators that were capable of scanning and perfectly reproducing an item molecule-for-molecule. If you had some item you made, would it be ethical to say that the creator has say on who makes copies and how many, or would it be up to the people who have the item? 20171025 12:36:34< Necrosporus> I'd vote for second option 20171025 12:36:42< DeFender1031> Yes, I thought you might. 20171025 12:36:43< zookeeper> i think there's a pretty good correlation between how people answer that question and how they answer the "is IP property" question :P 20171025 12:36:48< wesnoth-discord-> I'd vote for the first. 20171025 12:36:51< DeFender1031> zookeeper, my point exactly 20171025 12:37:09< DeFender1031> zookeeper, and Necrosporus and @jyrkive just proved what you said, yeah. 20171025 12:37:44< DeFender1031> The point is that it comes down to a fundamental difference in how one views the creation and release of a work. 20171025 12:37:49< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, if you buy a physical thing, then you get full property rights to it, right? 20171025 12:37:49< zookeeper> and as i'm sure everyone has heard countless of times from other people, i too think that the "you wouldn't steal a car?" analogies kind of fall apart when you make them proper analogies by introducing molecular scanners... :p 20171025 12:38:42< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, then if you are forbidden to use molecular scanner or whatever, it would come against your liberty to operate your property 20171025 12:39:05< zookeeper> i would totally "steal" a car in that situation 20171025 12:39:21< DeFender1031> Does one believe that a work is inherently the property of the owner, and that the owner has the ability to release only some rights over a work but not all, or does an owner's release of a work constitute a release of ALL rights over that work? 20171025 12:39:25< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus, it's negotiable. However, most countries have consumer protection laws to ensure that whoever buys the item gets (mostly) full rights. 20171025 12:39:42< Necrosporus> Also, even without molecular scanners you are already able to replicate physical things to some extent 20171025 12:39:47< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, one could argue that you don't have the right to create a counterfiet. 20171025 12:39:57< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, again, my purpose is not to convince, but to understand. 20171025 12:40:12< Necrosporus> Counterfeit is when you claim that it's original thing 20171025 12:40:25< DeFender1031> Perhaps. 20171025 12:40:28< Necrosporus> Imagine if I make some black fizzy drink in my garage 20171025 12:40:29< DeFender1031> perhaps not 20171025 12:40:42< DeFender1031> perhaps merely having extant replicas of a thing diminishes its value. 20171025 12:40:54< Necrosporus> If I sell it as NecroDrink 9000 then I'm not making counterfeit stuff, am I ? 20171025 12:41:05< Necrosporus> But if I label it as Coca Cola, then it would be counterfeit 20171025 12:41:30< DeFender1031> To be fair "NecroDrink 9000" sounds pretty creepy. 20171025 12:41:32< DeFender1031> :P 20171025 12:41:38< wesnoth-discord-> Reverse engineering is a good example of something that's usually disallowed even in physical items in the US. In the EU there are laws that state that reverse engineering for the purpose of creating compatible products can't be disallowed. 20171025 12:41:58< wesnoth-discord-> It has been relevant for printer ink cartridges, for example. 20171025 12:42:58< Necrosporus> If I have bought a printer, shouldn't I have right to replenish its ink? 20171025 12:43:30< Necrosporus> And would it be really OK if you can go to a jail for sticking an ink syringe into your onw printer cartridge? 20171025 12:44:10< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, I feel like we're wandering past "making the point clear for the sake of understanding" and into "trying to convince" territory. 20171025 12:44:30< Ravana_> that would be solved by not making the printer yours 20171025 12:44:35< DeFender1031> Though I am grateful that everyone's remained civil. 20171025 12:44:54< zookeeper> DeFender1031, i'm perhaps atypically reductionist when it comes to ethics, but as said personally i don't care about concepts like works and rights and owners; all that matters are the utilitarian concerns. if i aim my replicator at your fancy new car, or the fancy piece of unique art you just painstakingly created, then you nor the car manufacturer actually loses anything, and there's nothing 20171025 12:44:55< zookeeper> more to the question than that. 20171025 12:45:36< DeFender1031> zookeeper, and that's a completely legitimate viewpoint 20171025 12:45:51< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus: It can be argued that if you bought a printer without right to replenish the ink, you just made a bad purchase and you should have bought a different printer instead. To be clear, that's NOT my opinion. 20171025 12:47:26< Necrosporus> But if you replenish its ink anyway, wouln't it be HUGE liberty concern if laws were in favor of putting you in jail in this case? 20171025 12:48:15< DeFender1031> Jail? No, it'd at most be a civil violation, not criminal 20171025 12:48:26< wesnoth-discord-> Going to jail would be too hard a punishment for breach of contract. 20171025 12:48:57< DeFender1031> But I don't see a problem with saying that by buying this printer, you agree not to use anything but certified ink, and are in violation of the agreement if you do 20171025 12:48:59< Necrosporus> What if you didn't even buy that printer, but found it in garbage bin? 20171025 12:49:11< DeFender1031> Sure, it's a ridiculous contract, and one you shouldn't enter into. 20171025 12:49:26< DeFender1031> But if you do so out of your own free will, no liberty has been violated. 20171025 12:49:40< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, what if you didn't sign a contract? 20171025 12:49:51< Necrosporus> Just found a printer in trash and brought home 20171025 12:50:19< DeFender1031> In that case then they wouldn't have any claim over you. 20171025 12:50:22< Necrosporus> Then washed it and replenished and it works 20171025 12:50:28< zookeeper> in theory it shouldn't be a problem, but sadly in practise consumerism doesn't seem to always work so well that those printer manufacturers would instantly fail, so legislation is often warranted :p 20171025 12:51:02< DeFender1031> zookeeper, well, that's always the problem with "free market" vs. "ceos are assholes" 20171025 12:51:32< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, and that's exactly one of concerns with copyright. You are under risk of prosecution even if you did not sign any contracts ever 20171025 12:51:35< wesnoth-discord-> In general, for a printer found from a garbage bin, the user can assume that using non-certified cartridges would be allowed. If the user later learns that it isn't, then he/she should stop doing it. (I repeat that this isn't my opinion, I'm just explaining how the reasoning goes.) 20171025 12:52:17< Necrosporus> And why user should care about anything besides printer working or not working? 20171025 12:52:25< DeFender1031> In theory, the free market theory would say "well, some other company would come and outdo the existing ones by not pulling that kind of crap." in practice, the companies have realized that despite the outrage it causes, it's still most cost effective to do it that way, and refillable cartriges don't make them as much. 20171025 12:53:34< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, again, though, the difference with copyright is that IF you consider a work to be property, then distributing it is theft, which you don't have a right to do. (Yes, I know you don't consider it such, but my point is that the reason it exists is because most people DO) 20171025 12:53:59< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, maybe when you refill cartrigeds it's theft 20171025 12:54:08< Necrosporus> Because otherwise you would buy a new cartridge? 20171025 12:54:16< Necrosporus> same reasoning as with copyright? 20171025 12:54:32< DeFender1031> Sure, I could hear that argument, but it's much weaker than the other one. 20171025 12:54:42< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus: of course a human being shouldn't intentionally do things he/she doesn't have the right to do. That applies not only to laws but also to contracts. 20171025 12:55:30< Necrosporus> But if others do things they shouln't have rights to do, how can you help? 20171025 12:55:31< wesnoth-discord-> For example, with reverse engineering (which is the practical example) no one has attempted this kind of loopholes AFAIK. 20171025 12:55:50< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, In the printer cartrige case, you're making a compatible replacement for it completely on your own. In the copyright case, you're taking SOMEONE ELSE'S property (according to the reasoning that says it is property) and using it without permission. 20171025 12:55:51< Necrosporus> What kind of loopholes? 20171025 12:56:22< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, you are making a compatible replacement of printer cartridge using old cartridge as sample 20171025 12:56:47< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, yes, but you legally own that cartridge. 20171025 12:56:58< Necrosporus> Same goes to copyrighted work. You make a compatible replacement (your copy of copyrighted work), by using another copy as a sample 20171025 12:57:13< DeFender1031> not the same 20171025 12:57:31< Necrosporus> What if you do not own a cartridge? 20171025 12:57:38< DeFender1031> hmm? 20171025 12:58:23< Necrosporus> You have a printer but no cartridge. Then you go to your friend who has same printer with cartridge. With firend's permission you examine the cartridge and make your own when you are back home 20171025 12:58:40< wesnoth-discord-> Say that you are an American company that wants to create alternative printer ink cartridges. The cartridges today are protected by firmware , and the firmware EULA disallows all kinds of reverse engineering. To avoid it, you simply "throw the printers away" and later "find" them from the same place (potentially with a different and totally unrelated company) and then reverse engineer pretending that you didn't know about the 20171025 12:58:41< wesnoth-discord-> EULA. 20171025 12:58:49< wesnoth-discord-> AFAIK, no one has attempted that in practice. 20171025 12:59:00< wesnoth-discord-> Because it's obvious that no court would fall for it. 20171025 12:59:42< wesnoth-discord-> (Added quotes around "totally unrelated" to make it clear that it's sarcastic.) 20171025 12:59:43< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, sure, but making your own, yourself, with your own materials, from scratch is akin to writing a piece of software yourself, with your own code, from scratch, not to pressing a button to copy it. 20171025 13:00:12< Necrosporus> Problem with that that there is not only firmware EULA, but also firmware Copyright. And while what you described does not violate EULA (since you didnt sign it), it still violates copyright 20171025 13:00:25< DeFender1031> Huh? 20171025 13:00:56< wesnoth-discord-> What do you mean? AFAIK, copies aren't created at any point of the revrese engineering process. 20171025 13:01:04< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, maybe you have molecular copier... 20171025 13:01:29< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, right, but as demonstrated, opinions on the molecular copier would differ as well. 20171025 13:01:30< Necrosporus> I do not think that there is any ethical difference between using molecular copyier and traditional CNC machines 20171025 13:02:00< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, the point is, it all comes down to how you view a creator's rights with regards to their own work, and whether they can release those rights piecemeal or not. 20171025 13:02:01< Necrosporus> amount of work to make it up and running is not ethically relevant here 20171025 13:02:05< Necrosporus> at least I think so 20171025 13:02:47< DeFender1031> either way, I have the answers that I sought when I started the conversation, so thank you for that. 20171025 13:03:41< Necrosporus> What do you mean? AFAIK, copies aren't created at any point of the revrese engineering process. // I thought copyright is not only about copyies, is it? 20171025 13:04:48-!- soloojos [~soloojos@gateway/tor-sasl/soloojos] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 13:05:23< wesnoth-discord-> Copyright means that only the author has the right to use or distribute the work. 20171025 13:05:38< wesnoth-discord-> The concept was created before computers were invented. 20171025 13:05:53< wesnoth-discord-> So, it doesn't say anything about reverse engineering. 20171025 13:07:21< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, it is probably (but not necessarily. I'd only claim that if there was a research about particular ways of such stimulation) beneficial to stimulate creative work in one way or another. Compromising liberty of copying is a really huge compromise. Should it be made? But even if we decide that this compromise has positive utility, it still does not mean that copyright equals property 20171025 13:07:49< Necrosporus> I think it was intention of people who wrote USA constitution 20171025 13:08:03< Necrosporus> They clearly said that copyright is compromise on liberty 20171025 13:08:11< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, no, you're looking it at backwards. 20171025 13:08:43< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, coming FROM THE POINT OF VIEW of someone who ALREADY believes an intellectual work to be property, then copyright is simply preventing the theft of that property. 20171025 13:08:52< DeFender1031> Do you follow? 20171025 13:09:12< Necrosporus> But where did that view come from? 20171025 13:09:19< Necrosporus> How did it come in existence? 20171025 13:09:22< DeFender1031> That's a different story. 20171025 13:09:45< wesnoth-discord-> It comes from the POV that property (both physical and intellectual property) is the result of work. 20171025 13:09:45< DeFender1031> i'd be willing to try to explain that iewpoint to you the way you explained yours to me if you'd like 20171025 13:10:13< Necrosporus> that's relevant. It was not initial intention of copyright to equate creative works with physical property 20171025 13:10:20< DeFender1031> but I'm asking if you can accept that that viewpoint exists, and whether it makes sense to you that, given that viewpoint, that copyright is preventing theft? 20171025 13:10:35< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, "It was not initial intention of copyright to equate creative works with physical property" according to whom? 20171025 13:11:01< Necrosporus> I read about it somewhere, but I don't remember where exactly 20171025 13:11:18< Necrosporus> It might have been something from Cory Doctrow or RMS 20171025 13:12:31< Necrosporus> Is everything which is result of work property? 20171025 13:12:55< Necrosporus> For example... What if you go to a field and dig up a hole 20171025 13:12:58< wesnoth-discord-> No. There is also service work, e.g. as a cashier. 20171025 13:13:01< Necrosporus> Will it create property? 20171025 13:13:07< DeFender1031> I would hazard that that's people projecting their own beliefs onto the intentions of the creators of the law. Unless there's a statement from the creators of a given law (or a statement within the law itself) of their intention with the law, I find any claim of "this is what they believed" to be highly suspect. 20171025 13:13:38< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, try finding USA constitution 20171025 13:13:46< Necrosporus> or at least its initial version 20171025 13:13:50< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, I've read it. 20171025 13:14:00< wesnoth-discord-> Yes, I believe that holes in the ground are property. 20171025 13:14:08< Necrosporus> What does it say about copyright? 20171025 13:14:17< DeFender1031> It doesn't say anything to the effect of "this is not to construe intellectual works as property" 20171025 13:14:30< wesnoth-discord-> In practice, it doesn't matter because laws say that holes in the ground belongs to whoever owns the land. 20171025 13:14:53< Necrosporus> Can land be unowned? 20171025 13:15:01< Necrosporus> or publically owned? 20171025 13:15:19< DeFender1031> Usually "unowned" land defaults to being owned by whatever municipality governs it. 20171025 13:15:20< wesnoth-discord-> I have already mentioned that I view land as an exception because it's not the result of work. 20171025 13:15:47< Necrosporus> What if Alice has dug up a hole and Bob has filled the hole with dirt, effectively cancelling Alice work. Did they both create property? 20171025 13:16:17< wesnoth-discord-> Yes, they did. 20171025 13:16:49< wesnoth-discord-> Depending on the circumstances, both holes and level land can be useful. 20171025 13:17:25< Necrosporus> But we can't say there is more property than before after both Alice and Bob completed their work/ 20171025 13:17:29< Necrosporus> can we? 20171025 13:17:39< Necrosporus> The land is same after that 20171025 13:18:08< wesnoth-discord-> Indeed, we can't. Bob obviously destroys the hole by filling it. 20171025 13:18:31< Necrosporus> But you just said Bob created property by doing it, didn't you? 20171025 13:18:52< wesnoth-discord-> The reason why that would happen is that whoever hired Bob figured that the hole had negative value. That it would be better for the hole to not be there. 20171025 13:19:13< wesnoth-discord-> Whereas when Alice was hired, it was believed that the hole would have positive value. 20171025 13:19:49< wesnoth-discord-> Bob destroyed the hole property and created level land property. 20171025 13:21:02< Necrosporus> I don't follow, why should either of that be called property. Maybe it's more logical to consider that both Alice and Bob did some service work, which didn't create property 20171025 13:22:01< Necrosporus> I agree that if Alice not just dug up a hole, but registered the hole in some sort of state registry or something it could be constited a property... But what if she didn't? 20171025 13:22:29< wesnoth-discord-> I view that anything that 1) work creates and 2) someone might want to own, is property. 20171025 13:22:35< DeFender1031> Why should the state registry determine what is and is not considered property? 20171025 13:22:41< wesnoth-discord-> Both apply to holes, as well as level land. 20171025 13:23:02< Necrosporus> Alice did not claim this hole as her own, did she? 20171025 13:23:15< Necrosporus> If she didn't, then how can it be property? 20171025 13:23:37< Necrosporus> State registry is some sort of validated claim of ownership 20171025 13:23:48< Necrosporus> IF you dont like it you may think up another wa 20171025 13:23:54-!- vladimirslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-iieustnbxkpdgtbt] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 13:24:12< wesnoth-discord-> IMO, it doesn't matter if anyone has claimed the hole as their own. The only thing that matters is that someone might want to own it. 20171025 13:24:31< wesnoth-discord-> Maybe it could be used to build a house or something. 20171025 13:24:37< Necrosporus> What if I want to own Sirius B? 20171025 13:24:43< DeFender1031> If i take a piece of wood and carve it into a bowl, do I have to formally claim it as my own before it's my property? 20171025 13:24:54< wesnoth-discord-> Sirius B is not the result of work. 20171025 13:25:42< Necrosporus> Is DeFender1031 wood piece a result of work if he picked it up in the woods? 20171025 13:26:19< wesnoth-discord-> Yes, because even finding it and bringing it to somewhere more practical is work. 20171025 13:26:49< Necrosporus> Then saying "I want to own Sirius B" is work too, isn't it? 20171025 13:26:54< DeFender1031> no. 20171025 13:27:09< Necrosporus> But it takes some effort to type it 20171025 13:27:18< Necrosporus> maybe negligible but not zero 20171025 13:28:05< DeFender1031> The work did not directly result in the object having value. 20171025 13:28:26< DeFender1031> bringing a piece of wood home results in my having a piece of wood i can use. 20171025 13:28:31< DeFender1031> direct result 20171025 13:28:36< wesnoth-discord-> Finding Sirius B from 8,6 lightyears away isn't really comparable to finding a wood piece right next to you. 20171025 13:28:53< DeFender1031> saying "i want all the wood in the forest" does not make the wood any more valuable than it was a second ago. 20171025 13:29:25< Necrosporus> If I find a new white dwarf, can I claim it as my own? 20171025 13:29:30< DeFender1031> ... 20171025 13:29:33< Necrosporus> With telescope 20171025 13:29:40< DeFender1031> again, there's no creation of value there 20171025 13:30:10< Necrosporus> I'd argue that knowing about Sirius B has much more value that having a piece of wood in your home 20171025 13:30:33< DeFender1031> knowing about, sure 20171025 13:30:43< DeFender1031> so write AND COPYRIGHT a research paper about it 20171025 13:31:06< DeFender1031> but in terms of the value of the thing itself, it has no more or less value after it's discovered than it did before 20171025 13:31:36< Necrosporus> copyright on research paper has nothing to do with using knowledge from it 20171025 13:31:39< DeFender1031> by contrast, a piece of wood that I bring home to make something out of has more value than a piece of wood lying in the forest 20171025 13:31:45< wesnoth-discord-> A piece of wood is something you can bring home and use afterwards. If you find a star, you have no way to bring it here or do something with it. 20171025 13:31:45< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, it was a joke. 20171025 13:31:54< DeFender1031> don't read too much into it 20171025 13:32:54< DeFender1031> @jyrkive and I'd argue that if you DID have a way to do something with it, then finding it AND taking it WOULD make it yours (ethical questions about doing so aside) 20171025 13:33:18< wesnoth-discord-> Right. Ability to teleport a star here would be a weapon of mass destruction. 20171025 13:33:29< Necrosporus> I do not think that property has direct connection with work. Sure, some property originates as result of work, but why is it important? 20171025 13:33:38< DeFender1031> @jyrkive, conversely, I'd argue that simply saying "there's a piece of wood in the forest that i'd like" doesn't make it yours until you actually go get it." 20171025 13:34:03< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, what is the defining property of property for you then? 20171025 13:34:15< DeFender1031> oh, hmm... just used "property" to mean to different things... 20171025 13:34:16< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus: I view being the result of work is what defines property. 20171025 13:34:26< loonycyborg> no 20171025 13:34:32< loonycyborg> then you can't own land 20171025 13:34:43< Necrosporus> jyrkive, can I disagree with you definition? 20171025 13:34:43< DeFender1031> loonycyborg, read above, land was discussed. 20171025 13:34:52< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, what is YOUR definition? 20171025 13:35:15< Necrosporus> I do not have it formulated yet. But what if you buy something? 20171025 13:35:15< loonycyborg> you found that land is not property? 20171025 13:35:22< loonycyborg> otherwise my point stands 20171025 13:35:43< loonycyborg> result of work can't define property 20171025 13:35:53< Necrosporus> What you count as work if I bought something in internet store? 20171025 13:35:59< wesnoth-discord-> Indeed, in my opinion land isn't property. 20171025 13:35:59< Necrosporus> Filling out web forms? 20171025 13:36:48< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, buying something is giving someone else your property, i.e. the result of your work, in exchange for their property, i.e. the result of their work. 20171025 13:36:49< loonycyborg> it's incorrect definition in any case 20171025 13:36:49< wesnoth-discord-> For the web form example, your answers are property. 20171025 13:37:05< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, no one said that property can't be exchanged. 20171025 13:37:18< DeFender1031> Simply that what defines it is that it is the result of work 20171025 13:37:19< Necrosporus> jyrkive, what if I order Ubuntu CD for free in internet store and somebody brought it to my home? 20171025 13:37:39< loonycyborg> well it's definitely wrong definition of it 20171025 13:37:40< wesnoth-discord-> I don't understand what you're asking. 20171025 13:38:00< Necrosporus> I don't see where is any work at all from my side is involved 20171025 13:38:12< DeFender1031> loonycyborg, can you dispense with the "wrong" and be a little more respectful of differing opinions, please? 20171025 13:38:19< Necrosporus> You ruled that simply saying "I want to own Sirius B" is not work, right? 20171025 13:38:43< Necrosporus> Then if I do same thing, I say "I want to own Ubuntu CD" and actually get it, it still is not work 20171025 13:38:49< wesnoth-discord-> Oh, right. You're referring to how the Ubuntu CD ends up in your possession. 20171025 13:38:53< Necrosporus> So I get some property without spending work 20171025 13:38:59< loonycyborg> well in this case this is simply incorrect use of word. I'm respectful to it, but it makes no sense to me 20171025 13:39:00< wesnoth-discord-> The answer is simple: Canonical donates the CD to you. 20171025 13:39:24< DeFender1031> yeah, someone gives their property to you 20171025 13:39:25< Necrosporus> Yeah. But it's not result of my work 20171025 13:39:29< wesnoth-discord-> It was originally created in a factory that creates CDs, obviously. 20171025 13:39:46< DeFender1031> no one said that was a qualification 20171025 13:39:52-!- Haudegen [~quassel@212-186-77-29.static.upcbusiness.at] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 13:39:59< Necrosporus> OK.... 20171025 13:40:10< DeFender1031> it's the result of work. if the person whose work it is chooses to make someone else the owner, that's their prerogative. 20171025 13:40:10< Necrosporus> What if a golden meteorite hit my window? 20171025 13:40:26< Necrosporus> Would that gold piece be my property? 20171025 13:40:42< wesnoth-discord-> A golden meteorite isn't property and doesn't belong to anyone from moral standpoint. 20171025 13:40:53< DeFender1031> did you go pick it up and bring it in? 20171025 13:41:01< Necrosporus> So woult it for me be immoral to sell it? 20171025 13:41:24< Necrosporus> It has fallen through my window 20171025 13:41:34< Necrosporus> Now I have it lying on my table 20171025 13:41:48< wesnoth-discord-> Depends on what would be best from the utilitarian standpoint. 20171025 13:42:18< wesnoth-discord-> It would likely be of interest for scientific research, and therefore should be given to scientists. 20171025 13:42:53< Necrosporus> Let's imagine if it was some sort of common non-interesting metheorites... %) 20171025 13:43:03< Necrosporus> yes, I understand that it's a huge stretch 20171025 13:43:33< Necrosporus> It doesn't have to be meteorite too 20171025 13:43:37< wesnoth-discord-> In that case, you can keep it. It's simplest to just give it to you. 20171025 13:43:41< DeFender1031> so then you take it to a swordmaster and make it into a space sword. 20171025 13:44:08< Necrosporus> So I have just asquired property without any work at all 20171025 13:44:08< wesnoth-discord-> Still, from a purely moral standpoint, you're not entitled to it because you didn't create it or buy it from someone else entitled. 20171025 13:44:37< wesnoth-discord-> I said that it isn't property. 20171025 13:46:04< Necrosporus> If I sell it will money be my property? 20171025 13:46:31< Necrosporus> Will it become property of buyer? 20171025 13:47:05< DeFender1031> Selling it is work. 20171025 13:47:07< wesnoth-discord-> Yes and yes. But both will be property you're not entitled to from a purely moral standpoint. 20171025 13:47:17< DeFender1031> In fact, anything you would do with it to give it value would be work 20171025 13:47:51< DeFender1031> I'm not convinced you're not entitled to it. 20171025 13:47:59< DeFender1031> Interesting question, though 20171025 13:48:38< loonycyborg> there can be no moral justifications to it, it's purely utilitarian concept 20171025 13:49:04< Necrosporus> What if somebody have stolen that meteorite from my table before I found out about it? 20171025 13:49:14< Necrosporus> would it be immoral? 20171025 13:49:28< loonycyborg> you "own" objects purely for convenience of management 20171025 13:49:48-!- vultraz [uid24821@wesnoth/developer/vultraz] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 13:49:52< loonycyborg> other people respect your properly purely so you would have that object at hand when you need it for something 20171025 13:49:57< wesnoth-discord-> If it happens before you find the meteorite, then I find that "stealing" it isn't immoral. It wasn't yours anyway. 20171025 13:50:19< Necrosporus> What if it happened after I found out? 20171025 13:50:25< loonycyborg> all non-utilitarian cases are pure grey area 20171025 13:50:30< loonycyborg> like gold meteorite 20171025 13:50:37< wesnoth-discord-> In that case, stealing it would be immoral. 20171025 13:50:40< loonycyborg> goverment will have to decide in the end 20171025 13:51:02< loonycyborg> and it'll decide in whatever fashion it decides is the best for society 20171025 13:51:05< Necrosporus> I doubt that moralness of stealing depends on owner knowledge 20171025 13:51:14< loonycyborg> there is no inherent moral question to it 20171025 13:51:17< wesnoth-discord-> As soon as you find the meteorite from your table, it's yours and stealing it is immoral. 20171025 13:51:42< loonycyborg> what if it was part of some alien spaceship and aliens come to claim it? 20171025 13:52:03< Necrosporus> What if I steal a golden chest from somebody else backyard, which was buried by their grandphaser and I knew about it but backyard owner did not? 20171025 13:52:13< loonycyborg> even if they don't 20171025 13:52:24< loonycyborg> you can argue that in moral sense it still theirs 20171025 13:52:30< loonycyborg> but they can't come claim it 20171025 13:52:40< loonycyborg> and you can claim it by right of abandonment 20171025 13:53:29< wesnoth-discord-> Necrosporus: a buried golden chest is considered part of the land and therefore steling it is immoral. 20171025 13:53:52< loonycyborg> laws disagree here 20171025 13:54:09< loonycyborg> you can claim buried treasure for yourself 20171025 13:54:16< loonycyborg> and government takes a cut 20171025 13:54:41< wesnoth-discord-> Law doesn't necessarily match what's morally right. 20171025 13:54:48< Necrosporus> I think that ownership is linked with actual physical posession rather than with work 20171025 13:55:04< loonycyborg> yeah me too 20171025 13:55:13< Necrosporus> Such as if golden meteorite ends up on my table it's mine, and doesn't matter whenever I know about it yet or not 20171025 13:55:39< loonycyborg> but it's mostly a legal concept anyway 20171025 13:55:50< Necrosporus> If it ends up in public area, such as in forest, then whoever finds it first becomes the owner 20171025 13:56:06< loonycyborg> any sort of moral concern is hard to derive 20171025 13:56:09< wesnoth-discord-> I find that ownership is linked to work and agreements. Whoever creates something is the initial owner, but afterwards they can sell it. 20171025 13:56:34< Necrosporus> And not because of "work" to find it, but because they have have obtained physical posession of it 20171025 13:56:55< Necrosporus> Not everything is initially created 20171025 13:57:20< wesnoth-discord-> And those things don't morally belong to anyone. 20171025 13:58:19< Necrosporus> let's say, I have found a golden meteorite in a forest, then Alice noticed it and sneakily pulled it out of my pocket? 20171025 13:58:54< Necrosporus> I think that me getting physical posession (doesn't matter if work was involved or not) creates ownership 20171025 13:59:07< Necrosporus> Alice then violates it and her actions are immoral 20171025 13:59:28< wesnoth-discord-> From a purely moral standpoint, that meteorite didn't belong to anyone and stealing it wasn't wrong. From a practical standpoint, you own the meteorite and stealing it was wrong. 20171025 14:00:25< Necrosporus> I don't see why you need to create such a complexity 20171025 14:00:40< Necrosporus> Why not to resort to my reasoning? 20171025 14:01:41< wesnoth-discord-> Uh, I don't find my view complex at all. 20171025 14:01:59< Necrosporus> It's more complex that mine, seems. 20171025 14:02:11< wesnoth-discord-> Layer 1 is property. Anything that was created by work. It initially belongs to the owner, and the ownership can be freely transferred afterwards. 20171025 14:02:42-!- vslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-qmogfvpaalayekug] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 14:03:05< wesnoth-discord-> Layer 2 is non-property. Land, meteorites, and other rare cases. What isn't created by work. For our society to operate, they are considered to be initially owned by whoever claimed them first. 20171025 14:03:17< wesnoth-discord-> They are all the rules. 20171025 14:03:46< wesnoth-discord-> (Substitute "owner" with "creator") 20171025 14:04:05< Necrosporus> but it's easier to resort to one rule: Whoever gets physical posession first is owner. Subsequent transfer of ownership is subject to various contracts 20171025 14:04:28< wesnoth-discord-> Is air on your estate your property? 20171025 14:04:34< Necrosporus> If somebody used work to forge something, he becomes first owner 20171025 14:04:50< Necrosporus> if somebody finds something, he becomes owner 20171025 14:05:05< Necrosporus> In mine? probably 20171025 14:05:13< wesnoth-discord-> I have met one man who was of the opinion that it is 20171025 14:05:19< Necrosporus> Why not? 20171025 14:05:21-!- vladimirslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-iieustnbxkpdgtbt] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 20171025 14:05:33< wesnoth-discord-> I can't really follow the logic that you own a meteorite that just happens to fall to your table. 20171025 14:05:46< Necrosporus> I should have full rights to do whatever I want with air in my property. Unless that air doesn't leak to other's property 20171025 14:06:14< wesnoth-discord-> Well yeah it makes sense but that is a rather radical libertarianism 20171025 14:06:51< Necrosporus> I'd argue if somebody tries to pump air out of my room it would be violation 20171025 14:06:59< Necrosporus> of my right 20171025 14:07:10< wesnoth-discord-> the idea that anything on your estate which belongs to you and already doesnt belong to somebody is yours sure makes sense, but with air its going a bit too far 20171025 14:07:40< wesnoth-discord-> i think that land is your property, with air it makes sense to me only if you trapped it in your can 20171025 14:07:50< Necrosporus> I still think if you put a tube through my window and start pumping air out of my room you would be violating my property rights 20171025 14:07:54< wesnoth-discord-> yeah, that makes sense 20171025 14:08:10< wesnoth-discord-> everything that has no owner can be made a property 20171025 14:09:08< Necrosporus> I can't really follow the logic that you own a meteorite that just happens to fall to your table. // 1) You don't have rights to put things on my table or take things from my table unless you have permission from me, right? 20171025 14:09:21< wesnoth-discord-> That's correct. 20171025 14:09:40< Necrosporus> Then taking a golden meteorite from my table is violation of my property 20171025 14:09:44< wesnoth-discord-> And as soon as you see the meteorites in your table and claim it as yours, it's yours as per layer 2. 20171025 14:09:44< wesnoth-discord-> I think accepting that some things can be a non-property is too impractical 20171025 14:10:38< wesnoth-discord-> Taking the meteorite from your table violates your rights with the table, not the meteorite. 20171025 14:10:42< Necrosporus> Since there is no legal way for anybody but me to claim said meteorite as their own, it's logically mine, even if I didn't claim it yet 20171025 14:10:45< loonycyborg> well, I disagree with your redefinition of notion of property. Why not you invent a new word for this concept? 20171025 14:11:13< wesnoth-discord-> (Until you have claimed the meteorite, at which point taking it violates your rights with both.) 20171025 14:11:34< Necrosporus> And what action would be enough to claim it? 20171025 14:11:40< Necrosporus> Is it enough for me to see it? 20171025 14:11:45< wesnoth-discord-> Yes. 20171025 14:11:45< Necrosporus> Or I should go and grab it? 20171025 14:11:59< Necrosporus> What if I have a camera which constantly records table? 20171025 14:12:20< Necrosporus> And then I look at said record and see Alice taking it... 20171025 14:12:46< wesnoth-discord-> In that case you implicitly claim it as soon as the camera records it. 20171025 14:13:15< Necrosporus> Table sort of records it too, since it's likely to leave a dent 20171025 14:13:51< Necrosporus> Though for sake of simplicity I do not think it's really necessary 20171025 14:13:54< wesnoth-discord-> With a dent, it's impossible to tell what left it. And no one would think of a golden meteorite first. 20171025 14:14:15< Necrosporus> There might be gold particles in the dent 20171025 14:14:34< wesnoth-discord-> jyrkive, if I understand it right non-property are things not created by anyone, but they are owned by people who claimed them first, then what is the difference from them being a property except that they werent created? 20171025 14:14:39< wesnoth-discord-> Even in that case I'd imagine that someone hit the table with a golden object and then left. 20171025 14:15:00< wesnoth-discord-> I hate when disaster at work coincides with discussion on Wesnoth. 20171025 14:15:12< wesnoth-discord-> Not being created by work is indeed the only differences. 20171025 14:15:39< wesnoth-discord-> hm then I think there is no need for such differentation 20171025 14:15:56< Necrosporus> Right, that what I think too. 20171025 14:16:08< Necrosporus> it's just unnecessary complication 20171025 14:16:32< wesnoth-discord-> Well, I just can't agree with the view that something that no one has spent effort to create/obtain would be someone's property. 20171025 14:17:04< wesnoth-discord-> non property implies that these things arent or cant be a property- yet they still can, but need not have all the properties of a property 20171025 14:17:51< Necrosporus> I don't agree with opposite either. Even if effort was made it does not mean that it has created a property 20171025 14:19:32< Necrosporus> I think that Effort is correlate with property, but it should not be part of its definition. Like one of the ways to get physical posession on something is to create it 20171025 14:19:48< wesnoth-discord-> well if it is a philosophy of morality problem, i am not sure if its immorap to appriopriate the non-property (the differentation is actually useful eh) 20171025 14:19:56< Necrosporus> But getting physicial posession is what made it your property, not creating 20171025 14:20:11-!- Haudegen [~quassel@212-186-77-29.static.upcbusiness.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20171025 14:20:25< wesnoth-discord-> the utilitarian standpoint is the best but in many cases probably impractical 20171025 14:20:36< Necrosporus> If you create something which doesn not end up in your physical posession then it doesn't become your property 20171025 14:20:52< wesnoth-discord-> I'm going home now and will be offline for a couple of hours. This has been a fun discussion, thanks everyone. 😃 20171025 14:20:54< wesnoth-discord-> and in most cases appriopriating a non-property is good 20171025 14:21:19< Necrosporus> jyrkive, example. If you draw something on friend's wall inside friend's room 20171025 14:21:30< Necrosporus> That drawing becomes friends' property not yours 20171025 14:21:43< Necrosporus> Because you do not obtain physical posession of it, but friend does 20171025 14:23:25< wesnoth-discord-> I think jyrkive is rather taking it as a moral problem, but the view that you shouldnt appriopriate non-property is simply too impractical 20171025 14:23:46< wesnoth-discord-> but he was talking about utilitarianism so i am not sure about all that 20171025 14:24:00< wesnoth-discord-> libertarian standpoint is probably the most practical 20171025 14:25:32< wesnoth-discord-> if you dont appriopriate a non-property, lets say a piece of land, just somebody else who does not share your view would do it, and noone who shares your view could oppose him 20171025 14:29:12< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, by the way, see. My point is that property is linked to physical posession. For example, I have physical posession of my HDD, so I have ownership rights to all magnetic domains on its plates as well 20171025 14:29:31< wesnoth-discord-> yes 20171025 14:29:36< Necrosporus> If somebody said that I can't manipulate my magnetic domains in certain way they are violating my property rights 20171025 14:29:38< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, Yes, I see your point, thank you. 20171025 14:30:02< wesnoth-discord-> and his point was that property is linked to work if i understand it correctly 20171025 14:30:23< Necrosporus> I can still claim that I did some work to download a movie or whatever 20171025 14:30:28< Necrosporus> So it should belong to me 20171025 14:30:50< Necrosporus> I mean the particular copy which I spent my effort on 20171025 14:30:51< wesnoth-discord-> that is intellectual property 20171025 14:30:53< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, and a thief can claim that breaking into your house it work, doesn't make the thing he stole belong to him 20171025 14:31:03< DeFender1031> is work* 20171025 14:31:15< Necrosporus> Yes. That's why linking property to work is wrong 20171025 14:31:26< DeFender1031> ...what? 20171025 14:31:31< DeFender1031> how does that follow? 20171025 14:31:42< Necrosporus> Thief has valid claim from "work" standpoint 20171025 14:31:46< wesnoth-discord-> well hm, if we assume that his rule also applies to intelelctual property, which is a different thing then, well, intellectual property does not exist i guess 20171025 14:31:51< Necrosporus> but it's invalid from posession point 20171025 14:31:56< wesnoth-discord-> unless he just meant that it is linked with creating it 20171025 14:32:00< wesnoth-discord-> that makes more sense 20171025 14:32:11< DeFender1031> the work that GIVES VALUE to the thing 20171025 14:32:18< DeFender1031> that is a key point 20171025 14:32:38< Necrosporus> If I didn't download a movie, I wouldn't get any value from it 20171025 14:32:44< wesnoth-discord-> sounds ambiguous xD 20171025 14:32:48< Necrosporus> So downloading created some value 20171025 14:32:49-!- vslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-qmogfvpaalayekug] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20171025 14:32:49< wesnoth-discord-> yes 20171025 14:33:06< wesnoth-discord-> you can also watch the movie and then create a meme out of it 20171025 14:33:11-!- vslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-tfvsepgblpxmzflq] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 14:33:16< wesnoth-discord-> it is a value i guess 20171025 14:34:24< wesnoth-discord-> just that property is linked with creation makes much more sense, and that property can be given to someone else on the creator's discretion 20171025 14:34:41< wesnoth-discord-> but still, its impractical when it comes to things like land 20171025 14:34:58< zookeeper> oh hey i totally forgot that the conversation didn't end the moment i decided to look elsewhere. now there's hundreds of lines of backlog... 20171025 14:39:25-!- Haudegen [~quassel@212-186-77-29.static.upcbusiness.at] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 14:39:33< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, and if a thief didn't take something from you, he wouldn't get any value from it. 20171025 14:40:21< Necrosporus> Right. That's why my approach makes more sense. Thief is already wrong at the moment when he entered my property without permission 20171025 14:40:26< Necrosporus> And pocket counts too 20171025 14:40:45< Necrosporus> And work-value stuff is bogus 20171025 14:41:35< Necrosporus> Even if my pocket was empty, a thief putting a hand there is already doing a crime 20171025 14:42:42< DeFender1031> no, that doesn't prove your argument makes more sense, that's circular reasoning 20171025 14:43:06< wesnoth-discord-> Can we not have this discussion anymore? There are better venues to discuss the concept of intellectual property than a place that runs on that concept. 20171025 14:43:45< DeFender1031> @shadowm, the discussion was mostly to understand each other's side, not to attack or convince. 20171025 14:44:04< wesnoth-discord-> (I'd like to clarify that "no" is not a valid answer for my question.) 20171025 14:44:11< DeFender1031> but I agree, I think that at this point anything that can be said to that end has been done. 20171025 14:44:26< DeFender1031> Necrosporus, let's leave it here, shall we? 20171025 14:44:57< Necrosporus> I think it's better to wait for jyrki 20171025 14:45:28< Necrosporus> DeFender1031, but do you understand how is free software linked to liberty? 20171025 14:45:43< DeFender1031> yes, thank you. You made your point of view quite clear. 20171025 14:45:59< DeFender1031> I very much appreciate it. I have a much better understanding of the mindset now. 20171025 14:48:49< wesnoth-discord-> horse just dodged 4/4 from archer and 2/2 from wose 20171025 14:48:58< wesnoth-discord-> that cav must have had amulet of protection against rng or something 20171025 14:49:05< wesnoth-discord-> so sad 20171025 14:49:23< wesnoth-discord-> communists needed money to overthrow capitalism XD just an example 20171025 14:49:25< wesnoth-discord-> i guess i should have just stayed at home in the vills and trees 20171025 14:49:47< wesnoth-discord-> sucks to finally make it to a decent unit composition as elf, and just get owned by rng 20171025 14:51:07< wesnoth-discord-> why live? 20171025 14:53:10< wesnoth-discord-> What if I gave cavalrymen a resistance to pierce? 20171025 14:53:21< wesnoth-discord-> pls 20171025 14:53:36< wesnoth-discord-> then i would only play loyalist 20171025 14:55:14< wesnoth-discord-> The Cavalryman line has more armor. Knights, Grand Knights and Paladins have more armor than a Cavalier, though. 20171025 14:55:35< wesnoth-discord-> //shrug 20171025 14:55:57< wesnoth-discord-> if you level up a horseman as loyalist, in mp you are already doing quite well for yourself anyway 20171025 14:56:08< wesnoth-discord-> Agreed. 20171025 14:56:28< wesnoth-discord-> actually if you level up mostly any melee unit imo 20171025 14:56:33< wesnoth-discord-> its quite good already 20171025 14:56:45< wesnoth-discord-> sad 20171025 14:56:48< wesnoth-discord-> rng pls 20171025 14:57:29< wesnoth-discord-> Oh yeah 20171025 14:57:43< wesnoth-discord-> The Shaman is woefully weak, though. 20171025 14:57:52< wesnoth-discord-> nah shammy is bae 20171025 14:58:00< wesnoth-discord-> i mean obviously you cannot spam them 20171025 14:58:22< wesnoth-discord-> but its quite nice to have one just to slow units that want to get away 20171025 14:58:43< wesnoth-discord-> or if you want to attack something like dwarf fighter with a wose 20171025 14:58:50< wesnoth-discord-> its nice to have her around just to slow 20171025 14:59:15< wesnoth-discord-> and then she heals units that you attacked the slowed one with on the next turn 20171025 14:59:16< wesnoth-discord-> really nice 20171025 14:59:25< wesnoth-discord-> But, leveling her up is painfully hard. 20171025 14:59:35< wesnoth-discord-> yeah but you dont really need to get a leveled shammy in mp anyway 20171025 14:59:49< wesnoth-discord-> and in sp you can basically just abuse ai and win with whatever, even shaman spam 20171025 15:00:05< wesnoth-discord-> i'd rather have an elvish captain tbh 20171025 15:00:17< wesnoth-discord-> need a big strong elf man 20171025 15:00:20< wesnoth-discord-> you can spam shammy 20171025 15:00:25< wesnoth-discord-> to rest my head on at night when i sleep 20171025 15:00:26< wesnoth-discord-> if you dare! 20171025 15:00:45< wesnoth-discord-> I like the Shaman's advancements 20171025 15:00:55< wesnoth-discord-> yeah i mean obviously they are good 20171025 15:01:05< wesnoth-discord-> Level her up and she's strong. 20171025 15:01:14< wesnoth-discord-> bae who can fly is obv better than bae who cannot fly 20171025 15:01:24< wesnoth-discord-> Although, a melee female human unit would be weird. 20171025 15:01:41< wesnoth-discord-> yea loyalist are boss of this gym 20171025 15:01:51< wesnoth-discord-> no time for girls 20171025 15:01:55< wesnoth-discord-> just wrestle 20171025 15:02:27-!- vslavik [vslavik@nat/redhat/x-tfvsepgblpxmzflq] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds] 20171025 15:03:02< wesnoth-discord-> I'm just here thinking of redoing some custom factions. 20171025 15:03:23< wesnoth-discord-> Rashy's human cavalry sprites are just too good. 20171025 15:03:30< wesnoth-discord-> pls make gachi faction 20171025 15:13:14< wesnoth-discord-> Loyalists, the boss-pack of the gym of Irdya? 20171025 15:13:19< wesnoth-discord-> I care to disagree. 20171025 15:16:12< wesnoth-discord-> Look at the Drakes, cloaked in armours accentuating their sheer muscle and power, a clear nod to the sheer masculine potential held within them. Look at their breath, unbound potential burning the world. And what are they but adolescents. Adolescents, yet already far more worked out than the average Loyalist potbelly. 20171025 15:16:22< wesnoth-discord-> What did I just type. 20171025 15:16:30< wesnoth-discord-> if you are maintainer of the new rashy factions, they need some buffs for ageless xD 20171025 15:16:52< wesnoth-discord-> i prefer trolls 20171025 15:21:26< wesnoth-discord-> Hey buddy, think you got the wrong terrain. Cover's two hexes down. 20171025 15:21:43< wesnoth-discord-> Why don't you get outta that, uh 20171025 15:21:48< wesnoth-discord-> jabroni outfit? 20171025 15:22:11< wesnoth-discord-> //slams spear on shield 20171025 15:28:26< wesnoth-discord-> I'm not a maintainer for Rashy. I do want to use some of Rashy's sprites, though. 20171025 15:35:00< wesnoth-discord-> Is Rashy even here? 20171025 15:39:24< wesnoth-discord-> The Drakes are strong, but they generally have one weakness - pierce. 20171025 15:40:46< wesnoth-discord-> and what better, more masculine weapon to apply that piercing damage, than a spear, thrusted repeatedly into the soft flesh of your enemies 20171025 15:42:50< wesnoth-discord-> Horsemen can do short work of drakes. 20171025 15:44:12< wesnoth-discord-> Metal Spear Solid 3: Drake Eater 20171025 15:44:16-!- Haudegen [~quassel@212-186-77-29.static.upcbusiness.at] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20171025 15:45:23< wesnoth-discord-> Cavalrymen with berserk is weird 20171025 15:45:43< wesnoth-discord-> All they would do is charge at shit. 20171025 16:01:16< DeFender1031> shadowm, today's apparently one month since you asked someone to remind you in a month to test downloading that add-on that you later said was no longer relevant. 20171025 16:31:32-!- Kranix [~magnus@dtuguest.deic.dk] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 16:45:02-!- Kranix [~magnus@dtuguest.deic.dk] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 20171025 18:18:19-!- Narrat [~Narrat@p5DCC6953.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 18:28:45-!- Bhoren [~Bhoren_wh@2a01:e0a:c:2150:f93f:5ba6:2700:3d2b] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 18:33:18-!- Bhoren [~Bhoren_wh@2a01:e0a:c:2150:f93f:5ba6:2700:3d2b] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20171025 18:47:53-!- Kranix [~magnus@xd520f683.cust.hiper.dk] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 19:05:25-!- uprego [~uprego@57.red-88-3-136.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 19:06:31-!- galegosimpatico [~uprego@unaffiliated/ushiu] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds] 20171025 19:59:55< wesnoth-discord-> I wrote this inspired by the above conversation. 20171025 19:59:56< wesnoth-discord-> https://adramolokh.tumblr.com/post/166789449172/big-strong-dragon-men 20171025 20:00:09< wesnoth-discord-> Some things simply spin out of control. 20171025 20:34:48-!- Kranix [~magnus@xd520f683.cust.hiper.dk] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20171025 20:36:18-!- Kranix [~magnus@xd520f683.cust.hiper.dk] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 20:55:17< wesnoth-discord-> Well at least there aren't any furries in here. :run: 20171025 21:01:00-!- soloojos [~soloojos@gateway/tor-sasl/soloojos] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 20171025 21:04:43< wesnoth-discord-> ... Okay. 20171025 21:06:32< wesnoth-discord-> Humpty, I have to somehow survive writing this shit 20171025 21:08:15-!- Kranix [~magnus@xd520f683.cust.hiper.dk] has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!] 20171025 21:12:57< zookeeper> we should totally put all this great fanfic that's been cropping up lately into the wiki or something. 20171025 21:25:04< wesnoth-discord-> rofl this is great 20171025 21:26:44-!- soloojos [~soloojos@gateway/tor-sasl/soloojos] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 22:01:35< wesnoth-discord-> ಠ_ಠ 20171025 22:02:26< wesnoth-discord-> nemaara is that you 20171025 22:04:01< wesnoth-discord-> isnt this shadowm's fav face 20171025 22:15:17-!- Haudegen [~quassel@178.115.237.87] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 22:25:46-!- uprego [~uprego@57.red-88-3-136.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has quit [Changing host] 20171025 22:25:46-!- uprego [~uprego@unaffiliated/ushiu] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 22:45:53-!- zookeeper [~lmsnie@wesnoth/developer/zookeeper] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds] 20171025 23:28:10-!- Narrat [~Narrat@p5DCC6953.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has quit [Read error: No route to host] 20171025 23:30:55-!- Narrat [~Narrat@p5DCC6953.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 23:31:58-!- prophile [~alynn@oftn/oswg-member/prophile] has joined #wesnoth 20171025 23:53:47-!- uprego [~uprego@unaffiliated/ushiu] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds] 20171025 23:55:43-!- uprego [~uprego@57.red-88-3-136.dynamicip.rima-tde.net] has joined #wesnoth --- Log closed Thu Oct 26 00:00:49 2017