When you buy a hardware synth do you actually own all of it?

[HAL76]

After purchasing the device, you become its owner and are entitled to dispose of it as you see fit. However, this does not mean that your ownership rights invalidate any protected interests (copyright, patents, etc.).

It's very similar to disposal. You can't just dump the device in the woods or your neighbor's pond because your property rights carry less weight when they conflict with other legal norms

[Seluvis]

And yet a pot is still not a plate. Nor is the decorative message on the plate.

That is until you entertain the idea of set theory, in some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate. Just Sayin.

[whyterabbyt]

And yet a pot is still not a plate. Nor is the decorative message on the plate.

That is until you entertain the idea of set theory,

Well, yes, as long as its a proper understanding of it.

in some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red.

is that what set theory states? I honestly cant remember that from when I was taught it.

personally, i'd classify red as an attribute, not an object, and consider that objects with that attribute would be in the same set, of 'red things'

In much the same way a pot is a plate.

In much the same way as what? That you could categorise a set of red things? Im not sure creating an arbitrary set is 'much the same way' as how any categorisation of subsets of how items within a different set can be related. Could you explain that?

ie You are asserting that if you have a set of red things that includes a red car and a red flower, then 'in much the same way', a car is a flower?

See, I just wouldnt do that. I would say that if I have a set of 'things made of clay' then clay pots and clay plates would be in that set, but also that neither are the set, nor are all things in the set the same thing. I wouldnt say that all clay things are pots and plates.

[DrOcsid]

We more or less know the existing structure of software EULAs and how the law in many countries is built around that. One way or another, software agreements tend to be legally binding unless they contradict existing law, and thus legally speaking if the agreement doesn't state you own the software, then according to the law, you don't. If you buy a Nintendo DS, you own the device but not the firmware built into it. And EULAs also tend to have binding stipulations that you agree to them simply by using the software. That's long established in the United States and plenty of other countries.

That said, I don't think there's a lot of productivity in going back and forth on what technically legally constitutes ownership of software or data, and I also feel like it isn't particularly relevant to much in this context unless anyone's actually going to court or you see an actual ethical (not legal, ethical) issue in the specific situation you're in. As far as I'm concerned, if I paid for a piece of software, then I treat that copy of the software as something I own regardless of what an EULA says. I'm certainly not unique in that regard.

Regardless of what people can try and twist the word "own" into whether it's by legal means or forum debates, I think at the end of the day, the end result of people treating software like they really own it is fine. There are already a million ways people use their own judgment every day to live their lives in ways that don't line up with what legislation says to the letter. I say just rely on your personal judgment on a situational basis like everyone else does with all sorts of other laws. Centering on IP law like it's some unique sacred cow anyone has some kind of moral obligation to follow to a T is kind of silly and weirdly absolutist.

If there's a law to be petty about I'd rather take issue with people who do rolling stops at stop signs or something.

[Seluvis]

personally, i'd classify red as an attribute, not an object, and consider that objects with that attribute would be in the same set, of 'red things'

An attribute describes something. But Red is Red and anything that is Red is an object, a class in itself or a real thing if you prefer. You are just kicking the proverbial can down the road.
Of course your philosophy may vary from my own.

[Seluvis]

personally, i'd classify red as an attribute, not an object, and consider that objects with that attribute would be in the same set, of 'red things'

An attribute describes something. But Red is Red and anything that is Red is an object, a class in itself or a real thing if you prefer. You are just kicking the proverbial can down the road.
Of course your philosophy may vary from my own.

[Seluvis]

personally, i'd classify red as an attribute, not an object, and consider that objects with that attribute would be in the same set, of 'red things'

An attribute describes something. But Red is Red and anything that is Red is an object, a class in itself or a real thing if you prefer. You are just kicking the proverbial can down the road.
Of course your philosophy may vary from my own.

[BBFG#]

I've told you a vermillion times Pinky that "red" is not always "red" in your palette limitations and far more than you seem to comprehend. It's first and foremost a wavelength, particle and neither.
~ Brain

[Seluvis]

I've told you a vermillion times Pinky that "red" is not always "red" in your palette limitations and far more than you seem to comprehend. It's first and foremost a wavelength, particle and neither.
~ Brain

hehe I like it, good to hear others peeps input.

[DaveClark]

Owning is a very capitalist term.

No it is not. From Google AI:

"Yes, ownership is a fundamental legal concept defining the exclusive right to possess, use, enjoy, and transfer tangible or intangible assets. It signifies a legally recognized, enforceable claim or title to property, often referred to as a 'bundle of rights.' Ownership is legally distinct from mere possession and is protected by law."

As such, it is neither capitalistic nor rabidly socialistic. It is agnostic.

Karl Marx's point of view (Google AI sourcing Wikipedia):

"Karl Marx argued that private ownership of the means of production (factories, land, tools) is the foundation of capitalism, enabling the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat by stealing their 'surplus value'. He advocated for a violent revolution to abolish private property, replacing it with collective or state ownership to eliminate class conflict."

BTW: I use Google AI because it's a lot easier to explain simple things than it is for me to waste the time to write it all out myself. Otherwise, I would have done that.

[El°HYM]

You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
~ Brian

[whyterabbyt]

An attribute describes something.

Yes, indeed. Attributes is a synonym for 'properties.'

Did you not insist we should reference set theory?

set theory, branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of well-defined collections of objects, which may or may not be of a mathematical nature, such as numbers or functions

But Red is Red and anything that is Red is an object

That's not set theory. If 'red' is your set, in set theory the set is considered an object. Set theory does not state that the members of the set are equivalent to the set object or to each other.

, a class in itself

You havent defined class, but again, you seem to be conflating membership of the set with the set, which is not set theory.

or a real thing if you prefer.

and again, so no I dont.

You are just kicking the proverbial can down the road.
Of course your philosophy may vary from my own.

I find this exceptionally ironic. You are literally arguing 'all cats are mammals ergo all mammals are cats'

because 'red'

[whyterabbyt]

meanwhile white plates under a red light continue to be white plates not red pots.

[Seluvis]

I find this exceptionally ironic. You are literally arguing 'all cats are mammals ergo all mammals are cats'
because 'red'

Ouch I had no idea I had walked into some kind of beef that could trigger negative events for holding a point of view. Good luck dude, no offence meant.

[whyterabbyt]

Ouch I had no idea I had walked into some kind of beef that could trigger negative events for holding a point of view. Good luck dude, no offence meant.

Ah, you're one of those. Figures. Good luck 'dude', no offence meant. Maybe learn some genuine set theory.