The University of British Columbia engineering department did that like 15 or 20 years ago. They may have released a bunch of their information that might be useful for when you retire.

Sounds like a great plan

Where's that meetup happening exactly?

Exactly the kind of thing I would like to do an ev restomod on

This could literally be a conversation with my friends right now. (The issue not the words used here)

So much so that I will NOT be sharing this with them or I risk adding fuel to the fire

I knew you had it in you

I can think of many things worse than that, are you even trying??

And also put the big water barrels in front of them, preferably safety yellow with high vis reflective tape or paint on them

This reminds me of the old r/videosthatendtoosoon

I very much am not confused about this, you just aren't willing to consider other view points and keep shifting the goal posts.

I thought this was an interesting conversation. You have shown me that I was wrong about this conversation.

You aren't worth any more of my time.

And that's sad

It absolutely did give me ownership of the software on everysingle NES game I bought. NO ONE can tell me I don't own that plastic and can use it in anyway I want so long as I do not distribute copies or derivatives works of it. But I can create and make as many copies of it as I want as long as I keep them to myself and I can make whatever changes I want to it assuming I have the skillset to do so. They do not have to provide me any assistance, nor am I entitled to assistance to do these things, but as the owner I certainly can do these things

Owning something doesn't mean there aren't conditions, but I absolutely own those 1s and 0s on that piece of plastic. No one can delete them or take them or prevent me from using them in anyway.

This ISNT a 1980s thing either. Copying what's on my Plastic NES cartridges is no different than is no different than forging a copy of the Mona Lisa if I owned it. Distributing that copy in any way is currently prohibited, but I can paint it as long as I don't try to claim it's the original.

Owning a NES cartridge might also give me a limited license to certain things but I OWN that copy of 1s and 0s even if I can't copy it and sell it or give them away. I didn't sign a EULA when I bought Chrono trigger. YOU may have, but I didn't

This is no different than owning a house

I need to preface that I don't know how to say this any better and I'm also short on time so I'm going to ask your forgiveness for my bluntness and any offence this may come across as. I promise you im not attacking you and you are just going to have to accept it. Again my apologies but here we go..

Your logic is screwed up and I'm having a hard time trying to sort out where your flawed logic is, so I'm gonna need some grace and more self reflection from you than is probably expected, I hope you can accomodate my shortcomings in this.

It's not an attack, you seem to make a well thought out argument, which is more than I usually see. Credit to you and I do respect you for it.

All work created by a creator CAN be owned by someone else.

A horseshoe is no different from movie on DVD or SD card from an ownership standpoint.

I disagree that recording performances is a technological anomaly. Because it requires entirely too narrow a perspective.

The only different between someone writing a book describing a play and a recording is the medium used to record it. That medium is a physical thing.

We can't literally record thoughts, not in any meaningful or useful ways at the moment but we ARE close to that. There is a research experiment where they recorded someone's brain activity while they dreamt and were able to play that recording back to some degree of success.

In a hobbesian sense (as you described it, I'm not claiming mastery on the mans philosophy just trying to meet you where you are) you cannot own someones thoughts that use used to make a creation, whether it be a performance or a recording of the performance. The only difference between a horseshoe and a performance of a okay or music, is that not many people cared to bottle up the performance of a blacksmith making the horseshoe. Until YouTube.

Owning the horseshoe doesn't give you rights to the performance of its creation, neither does owning a copy of the recording of the performance grant you ownership of the horseshoe.

There are different things at play from start to finish. And they are treated differently. I don't think anyone is making the same arguments that you are claiming and refuting, and that's why I think there is a flaw in your arguments logic.

Owning a game on a disc or cartridge is not equivalent to owning the right to a performance. It doesn't give you ownership of anything other than what you purchased. In this case that we are discussing owning a game IS owning the code that exists on the physical medium, be it a hardrive, a paper printout, a disc. Ownership of that specific copy of that specific code is what ownership of a digital creation is. It's an ordered number of 1s and 0s. It's a copy of a pattern that is absolutely useless to anyone who can't read binary on the medium purchases. Ownership does not require usability, but it MUST provide a product that is tangible, regardless of its usability to the owner.

Im not understanding why you are using the examples of right to a performance the way you are using them and I think what I've written here should be enough to explain what I understand about the situation. My ability to communicate my thoughts clearly and precisely to you, anyone else reading this and also to myself are perhaps insufficient, but that doesn't automatically invalidate my understanding just because I can't explain it well, or that I've made errors in my attempt to communicate them in this medium

Also the patrons of the people and organizations that produced these works have often been owned by those who funded them, stop kidding yourself