Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE covering HPE Discover 2017 brought to you by Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Hey, welcome back everyone. We are live here in Las Vegas for SiliconANGLE Meetings theCUBE's three day of exclusive coverage of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, HPE Discover 2017. I'm John Furrier with my co-host Dave Vellante, seven years covering HP and we have our next guest who's been on the job for seven weeks, part of that set the senior vice president of HPE Point, next consulting industry veteran of cloud. You understand what's going on. Appreciate you coming in and sharing. Thank you for having me. You're talking points for seven weeks in the job, but you're new to HPE. Welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. So fresh in to HPE, got fresh eyes. You've been around the industry for a while. What is the hybrid journey for HPE? Because we're just in the Q and A with Meg and Antonio with the press and the analysts and still people are trying to put it together. Like no cloud, how do you guys fit in this? So hybrid cloud and simplifying hybrid IT, they're not saying simplifying hybrid cloud, simplifying hybrid IT which implies cloud. No, exactly. I think the approach that I would take is if you look at the role of the IT, it's really changing. I mean, if you, you can consider IT to be the strategic source right now. It's no longer who build it, who own it, who run it. Because now they're really managing a supply chain. So you're looking at the private cloud, public cloud and people having the highly automated infrastructure or software defined infrastructure and legacy bespoke systems. So the job of the IT is really getting very complex. So when you heard Meg talk about making hybrid IT simple, so for point next consulting standpoint, it's really working with the clients about making that journey much more simpler and making sure it's not just simple, but the speed is there as well as that we are focused on the workloads to really moving the workload securely. Because at the end of the day, the whole journey is really centered around the workload side of the house. And your role is, is my correct, it's tip of the spear consulting, is that right? And strategy consulting? That's correct, it includes the consulting and the professional service portfolio. So help us understand because when EDS, we went to CSC with a spin merge, all of a sudden you're seeing Accenture Deloitte and others come out of the woodworks. And that's, this is their wheelhouse and strategic consulting. So where do you pick up and how do you relate to those guys? Yeah, now it's like it's a great question and in fact, it's with the spinoffs, it's also given us a great opportunity to really work with a number of the ESIs and so we'll have a close working relationship with a number of them. And so from the way I look at the strategic consulting, where we add value is really more around the technology consulting piece of it. And because that's where we feel that we can really add differentiation and the partnering with some of our ESIs, that's where they can help us from the verticalization piece of it, the business process side of it, because that's not really our core strength. Our core strength is really around the technology consulting and also being around and dealing with and doing 11,000 plus engagements every year from point next perspective. There's a lot of experience that we bring to the table, partnering with our ecosystem, we truly bring some of these outcome-based solutions that we keep referring to. Dave's team at Wikibon has put out some pretty seminal research. I think it's very unique. I don't think any other research firm has actually documented this, even captured the numbers, but they just did a report called the true private cloud report go to wikibon.com for the folks watching. But really what it illustrates is that IT is not declining, it's only increasing in its capabilities. So yeah, server shipments might be declining, but at the end of the day, IT is changing and growing with cloud. But one of the points in that survey is the TAM is 260 billion plus in true private cloud. That doesn't include hybrid. But the other statistic besides the TAM is the fact that the labor costs are undifferentiated and being automated away with cloud, which is a good opportunity. And then the shifting of those resources to differentiated apps or services is the focus. That's business transformation. That's what you guys are doing. Sherab, what's up? Your thoughts and how you guys look at that. Obviously you're only seven weeks in from an HP perspective, but you've been in the industry. How are you guys going to attack that trend and ride that wave of shifting that to differentiated capabilities? Yeah, I think so one of the things you always hear about from a technology standpoint, a lot of folks focus on just the technology piece of it. And what we're finding is when we engage with the clients, it's really taking a look at, even before the technology, is what is the strategic framework? Why do so many digital transformation projects stall or fail? Because there's no end to an alignment in terms of business, IT and OT side of the house. So what you're seeing is from the consulting side of the house is kind of making sure that we bring these things together. And we have a methodology called Unified Transformational Framework, UTF, and which has seven key domains. And one of the first things we do when we engage with the clients, we bring them together, business side of it, the IT side of it, and we assess where they're at today in each one of those domains and assess the gaps. And then we actually put together a strategic framework with them in terms of what is the desired state where they want to be, where they're at today, and how do we map out that cloud journey to gather with them? And more importantly, what are the key outcomes they're really seeking? So if they are looking at focusing on achieving certain cost efficiency or launching new services faster or securing information network, or from an IoT perspective, what are the specific use cases, like for all in gas, you may have heard some of the examples here with text mark on refinery of the future. What are some of those outcomes they're looking for? And then kind of working backwards to make sure that we can take them on their journey roadmap and accelerate that whole journey. That's the time to value equation. So it seemed like the hybrid IT message that you guys provide is the foundational infrastructure for a digital transformation. Okay, sounds good. Now let's peel that back a little bit because if I'm an executive and a board, I'm saying, okay, great. How do we get started? How do we pay for it?  Here's where you guys are at. How much of that conversation is around the data and data, data value, how to monetize data, how it contributes to whatever objective, raise revenue, cut costs, et cetera. How much of the conversation do you anticipate is going to be around that data? No, actually there's quite a bit of discussion on the data as well. So I'll take it in steps of, there's two main topics that come up. One is really around the workloads as to enterprises have hundreds, thousands of applications running, but not every application, not every workload needs to move to a public cloud or private cloud. Some of them may be more suited towards just the dedicated infrastructure that they already have. So one of the first things we're focusing on through the tool, we do an inventory, as well as through the interviews. Because one path doesn't give you all the information that you see. Synthesizing the two really gives you the full picture. And then on top of it, more and more data is getting generated at the edge. And so in terms of what do you do with the data? How can you help them drive real-time action? And then what can you do to monetize on the data? Just like the example with the M1 GT team that's been showcased here, that's not just change the fan experience. It's also helping them take in the look at the data, the loyalty and everything else, and then increasing opportunities to drive top line growth from the revenues in the concession stand or promotional material. So you're absolutely right. The focus is more about not just gathering the data, the data production, data consumption, it's how do you monetize on that piece of it? And does HPE focus more on the IT transformation and your partners, like the big SIs on the business transformation? Or no, is it not that simple? It's not that clear cut lines? It's hard to just kind of say, okay, those are in their silos because there's that intersection point that really drives the digital transformation. That's one thing that I think we are uniquely positioned because number of these solutions you see on the demo floor here who jointly partnered up with our ecosystem. And that really drives that value up from the business outcome standpoint. So it's not just what the technology is able to do. It's not just who are able to have a faster server just than that. It's really more about what will that enable in terms of what is the business outcome that's enabling? But I would imagine your partners are deep experts in some healthcare business process that HPE doesn't possess. And you guys, from a technology standpoint, it can go much deeper than they can. My question is, how much of the conversation from your partners has been or do you expect it to be, hey, you know what? If you could do this with the technology, we can really help this company and win a large deal, for example. Which is a semi-custom, and it requires a deep technological expertise to marry with that business process. No, absolutely. In fact, I was with a partner earlier and actually what you just called out was very similar discussion with them. We're there, so from a healthcare perspective, one of the things we can do is, and we have done, we're at the picture and archiving communication system, we can package what one of the other providers does along with computer network storage, package that up, and where the configuration provisioning time is reduced dramatically when they show up on site, everything is pre-configured. But then jointly with a partner who has more knowledge about the patient experience, marrying the two, you can actually see not just how the healthcare provider and the patient are going to interact, but also the information that's generated there, how can that be analyzed at a remote location through a specialist. So it's that whole chain, the value chain that you can do with a partner that you're just not able to do yourself. Am I correct? You run a P&L, right? This is not a free... That's correct. No, it isn't. Okay, yes. So yeah, from that standpoint, we do work with the ecosystem where there is some investment made on the solutioning of it, but then obviously you take a look at does the solution make sense? Is there a market for it? Can you do the repeatability aspect of it? And if the answer is yes, then certainly both sides get much more heavily engaged. Arvesh, talk about the dynamic and digital transformation, specifically around as companies really transform from being analog to digital, that basically makes them cloud service providers. So if they have a certification, that's kind of a shift. This is the shift in IT we're talking about. Yeah, keeping the lights on, running servers in the data center, old way, classic enterprise. Portions of their operations now have to be shifted to this new way of doing IT to be a service provider. Yet they're not service providers, but they're becoming ones. Or they'll, the end user customer might buy from a partner that's becoming a service provider, either building their own cloud. Is that how you guys see it at point next? And how are you nurturing this or working with this mega trend that's the cloud is enabling? Right. So I'll give a couple of examples. I was with a client very recently and they've been trying to, they've been actually doing a number of use cases, 50 plus use cases in their labs on the whole use cases on digital transformation. And each use case theoretically can generate millions of savings for them. But at the same token, they haven't been able to take it out of the lab and mainstream it. So this goes back into the alignment piece of it. And then also the cultural and the organizational aspect always gets overlooked. Because if the focus is just on the solution piece of it or digitalization of the workflow, and you have not to transform the workforce in terms of how they should evolve, how the skillset should evolve and if certain roles are getting combined, how should they be dealing with that piece of it? You know, we have talked about DevOps or OpsDef is really the whole notion around how they should be working differently than before. If that aspect of it hasn't been put a lot of focus on most of those transformations literally stall or fail. You mean on the cultural piece of it? On the cultural piece of it, absolutely. So this is another area that we put a lot of focus on and in fact we have actually one of the offers who rolled out the management of change is actually getting a lot of traction just because of the reason. You know, one of the challenges that companies that I talked to you have is actually funding the digital transformation. The incentive to do it as well, if we don't do it, we're going to get uberized. Okay, so people get that, but at the same time the CFOs are like, okay, that's fine, but how are we going to make money at this? How are we going to actually pay for this? And really if they, if for organizations that can show that type of path to profitability, if I may, it seems like it gets more traction and has staying power. I wonder if you could comment on that. Well said. In fact, a number of the engagements we start off with, that discussion always comes up that we don't have any extra funds to go do this thing, but we have to do this thing in order to stay relevant. What do we do? Yeah, so one of the things we focus on is save to invest initiatives. So for example, you heard the example of Auto Group, one of the large global retailers. So the federal structure, and then moving towards where it can be had, they can move towards a centralized as well as a global standards architecture that can help them drive more speed, cut down the provisioning time, cut down on the operating cost. So when you have initiatives like that, the enterprises can then take those savings and then show the CFO that this is how we can apply those savings into these key initiatives that can continue to make us more relevant and also transform the end user experience or their end customer experience. So I think as you do this on prioritized use cases, that gives you more credibility in the organization to go do a lot more and much faster. So final question for you, observations, new to HPE, now point next, new to HPE Discover here as an employee. What's your observation about HPE Discover? Their position in the marketplace, vis-a-vis the industry scope and trends that are out there. No, first of all, I think coming out here, this is my first discovery. So I see a lot of excitement here. And I think to the point that you made earlier, Dave, with the spun-offs, I think that has really opened up a lot of the doors where a lot of the partners are saying, look, this is something we can do more together off. So every meeting that I've been with the customers as we're partners, they see us kind of where the top stack, you know, who are not biased towards that, right? Because this is not where we play, but we play more of a role of the solution aggregation, plus also bring a lot of that experience to really guide them on their journey. So one of the things I constantly hear is if you can help us accelerate time to value and you can help us drive the acceleration because a lot of these initiatives are stalling. Help us on that journey. There's tremendous opportunity for both sides. So that's what, we see a lot of excitement here. Professor Sethi, Senior Vice President Point Next. Welcome to theCUBE. Thanks for your commentary and insight. Appreciate it. Good luck with your journey. This is theCUBE bringing you all the digital transformation and conversations here at HP Discover 2017. I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. We'll be right back.


Musicpreneur. Hello, this is James Newcomb and welcome to episode number 14 of Musicpreneur, Making Money, Making Music. Today's topic is intellectual property and I'm going to warn you right now if you think that intellectual property is imperative for civilization to survive, if you think that artists cannot survive or thrive without intellectual property, well you're not going to like this episode at all, in fact you may as well just press stop right now, but hopefully it will give you at least a little bit of clarity on what is at best a confusing topic, especially in this day and age. So let's get to it with my guest, Stefan Kinsella. Welcome to the program, Stefan Kinsella. Thanks, glad to be here. Right. This is Musicpreneur, Making Money, Making Music and this is a topic that I have wrestled with over the years and I've come to the conclusion that intellectual property is a huge barrier to musicians monetizing their efforts. It creates a lot of problems for musicians and I realize that by saying this that a lot of people disagree with me or maybe I've turned them off already, but you know what? I am not going to beat around the bush anymore. I tried to deal with this sort of in a backdoor way and I say screw it and the best person that I thought of to tackle this issue and tell us why intellectual property is a hindrance to progress and innovation is Stefan Kinsella and he is the author of Against Intellectual Property as well as a free PDF called Doing Business Without Intellectual Property and you can get that PDF at Musicpreneur.com slash resources. So Stefan, I want to start out with I guess the major problem with intellectual property is that it really does not fit in with the traditional concept of property as we know it. Do I have that correct? Yeah, that's part of the way to look at the problems with it. You know I think you mentioned I'm actually a practicing patent attorney and intellectual property attorney so I've done this for 24 something years as a practice as my career. I'm also libertarian and I've always been very interested in property rights and justice and individual rights and also in the creative works you know the intellect, the creations of scientists and philosophers and artists and singers so it's not like I'm opposed to these things but just from what I've seen in my career and in my studies of individual rights and property rights and learning a little bit more about the history of and how these systems actually work, patent and copyright in particular, I've come to the conclusion and I came to the conclusion 20 something years ago that these laws are completely incompatible with justice, with property rights, they should be completely abolished and they do not achieve the purported functions that most people believe. People are so used to these ideas, artists are so used to a system that is dominated by and influenced by copyright, especially copyright we'll talk about for musicians and for these kind of entrepreneurs, novelists, writers, movie makers, people like that.  But when you start pointing out all the problems that IP as a practical matter causes the average typical creative person, they start to see yeah, maybe this bargain is not such a good idea. Well let's talk about how intellectual property is not property and the way that I understand it from what you say is that like here I'm holding a pencil right now that I'm taking notes with this interview, no one else can own this pencil, only I can have possession of it at one particular time. Whereas the words that I'm saying right now, well how can I say that I own those words, how can I say that I own this combination of words and that's, I guess that's where we have to start to understand how the concept of intellectual property is problematic. Yeah and look, the way I look at it, the way I've come to describe it over the years, it's I sometimes rely upon some of the concepts of a basic law, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand this and also some of the concepts of Austrian economics, I don't know if we need to get into Austrian economics here too much, you don't need to know the works of Hayek or Mises to really understand this, it's pretty common sensical but if you just understand the purpose, like step back and think about man and society, why we have laws, why we have rights, what the function of these things are, what the function of property rights are, you'll see why patent and copyright are completely incompatible. And just a patent is like a grant by the state that gives you basically a monopoly over the use of a given invention for roughly 17 years. Copyright is a monopoly granted by the state to be the only one who can say reproduce and broadcast and copy a creative work like a novel or a song or a song or even software which was not clear for a while because software has functional aspects. So finally the court said, yeah, this is so software actually is subject to with patents and copyrights and trademarks. So it's kind of hits all the bases. So the fundamental thing is we live in this world, a world of scarcity. Now by scarcity, it's an economic term. It just means there are things we want to use and we need to use to live tools, land, food, lumber, things like that in even your body. And this just means that only one person can use these things at a time. There's a possibility of conflict. But when humans in society see these kind of violent conflicts, some of us prefer to live in a peaceful society or cooperative one where we don't have these violent conflicts. And the only way to avoid that problem is for people to choose not to do it, which means if there's a resource or a good that can be used by only one person at a time like your pencil, we have to assign an owner to that thing. So we have a rule that everyone in society respects, which identifies the person who has the right to use that resource. So that's just property rights. So if you wanted to be precise, you wouldn't say the pencil is property. What you really would say is the pencil is a resource and you have a property right in that resource. Or basically you are the owner of that resource. The reason the word property is used is a property sort of means a characteristic, right? So when you use a pencil, it's an extension of yourself, right?  For some things that you use all the time, it might become very intimately associated with your very being, like your pair of glasses maybe. So you would say these things are a property of that person. And then people start over time calling it, it's his property. And when they say it's his property, what they really mean is it's his characteristic. But they tend to think of property as describing the object itself, the technically I would just call the resource as a resource that's owned. So the entire property rights system, which is what the whole legal system ultimately is about, simply is there to answer the question when there's a dispute between two or more people over who gets to use a type of resource over which there can be disputes, right? So there's some object, some thing that multiple people want to control, whether it's someone's body or someone's home or someone's pencil. The property system simply gives us an answer to that question. It says who the owner is. And then we identify the owner and everyone goes away and the owner gets to use it as he sees fit. And anyone else who interferes with that is then seen as a trespasser or as a criminal. Okay, so that's how property rights work. But you'll notice that that applies only to things that there can be conflict over, these scarce resources. Something like a pattern of information or knowledge that's in your head is not the same kind of resource. And this is where Austrian economics comes into it. And I'll just say one little thing about Austrian economics, not to turn off your guests, although I find Austrian economics fascinating. Well, I'd like to talk about Austrian economics because if we're going to tackle this issue, then let's just dive into the woods. So first of all, let's describe Austrian economics and how this more or less leads to this conclusion that we're talking about. Yes. So Austrian economics has nothing to do with the economics of Austria or Australia even. I think Tom Woods once had a debate about seven, eight years ago with the CEO of ING, the big insurance company, and it was about the crash or something. And this guy says, I don't know why Woods keeps talking about Austrian economics. Austria has got such a small economy compared to the U.S., and he's like, oh, Lord. So it's just one school of economics like there's a Chicago school, which is associated with Milton Friedman and the monetarists. There was a number of thinkers and philosophers that came out of Vienna, Austria at the turn of the well, around the 1900s. And they developed a distinct school of economics. It was started by people like Carl Manger and Friedrich von Beeser and then Ludwig von Mises and Hayek. So it's just a different type of economics, a little bit different than the Chicago school. And one strand of that is the school founded and perfected by Mises. And Mises had a unique way of looking at the problems of economics, and that is he called it human action. And all he did was he counted and for our purposes, we don't have to get the technical economics, but more of the framework of it or the methodology, which is that Mises recognized that humans act and that there are certain logical implications of that. And that's how he deduces his body of economic laws. But what it means to act is for a human being to look around the world and to have some conception of where he is and what the future is, what future is coming. And he anticipates some future that's coming that will happen without his intervention. In other words, something is coming, something's going to happen, and I don't like that. I'm dissatisfied by that. And I'm aware, I'm aware enough of the way tools operate, the way my arms can move, the way we can intervene in the physical processes of the world, that I could take an action and change things for the better. So that's all human action is in general terms. So if I start feeling hunger, I realize that if I don't procure some food, in about an hour I'm going to be very hungry or maybe I'll die, I'll be weak, right? So that thought frightens me or makes me uncomfortable. So I think, well, how can I satisfy this? Well, I've eaten before, so I know I need to eat. Well, how do I eat? I have to find food. Well, how do I get food? I have to maybe make a spear and go spear some fish. So you think of things like that. Those thoughts are informed by your knowledge of the world, your knowledge of what's possible, your knowledge of what might be coming, your knowledge of what tools are available that you could possibly manipulate.  So you can see there's two fundamental components to human action. All human action, number one, involves the employment of the scarce resources or means. And number two, it's guided by knowledge. So you have information or knowledge about what you think might happen in the future and about how the laws of physics work, right? How if you sharpen a spear and throw it in the water, gravity will take it down and if it hits the fish, it will kill the fish and you can catch the fish and you can use fire to cook the fish, et cetera. So you see all human action, especially successful human action, that is an action that achieves what you wanted to achieve is a combination of knowledge and employment of scarce resources. Now the scarce resources are these things that we talked about before that could, there could be conflict over those, like only I can eat that fish, only I can use that spear. So if there's another person around who wants that spear or wants that fish and he physically takes it from me, I've been deprived of the use of it and we might have to fight over it. So that's violent conflict. So a property rights system emerges among people who prefer cooperation and it emerges to settle disputes about those resources that we use in action. But you see that's only one part of human action. The other part again is the knowledge that you possess. It makes no sense to have property rights for the knowledge because the knowledge is not something people can fight over. My knowledge of how to use a sharp rock to make a spear tip, my knowledge of how to throw the spear at a fish and kill it is knowledge that anyone else can use at the same time. There may be thousands of other people who also know how to do this or they might have learned it from you from observing you, right? The fact that they copied what you did or learned from what you did doesn't take anything from you whatsoever. There's no conflict there. They're not taking the knowledge from you because you still have the knowledge. So this is fundamentally why intellectual property rights are incompatible with real property rights because they attempt to assign property rights in the knowledge part of human action as well as in the scarce resources part of human action. But this literally cannot work. Now look, I personally believe as a libertarian that patent law and copyright law should be abolished. I think these laws should not be laws. Okay, so that's just a normative position. But I also state as a lawyer and just as an analyst of this kind of legal system, it is literally impossible to have a property right in an idea. So the copyright system doesn't really grant property rights and ideas. What it really does, and the reason is because all law is backed up by force, that's physical force. Physical force is always applied to physical things in the world. That is to the scarce resources in the world. So for example, if a publisher sues a pirate for knocking off one of their author's books, what they really want is the use of force issued by a state court against the defendant which either takes his money from him in the form of damages or maybe puts him in jail even, so puts his body in jail or issues an order from the court compelling him not to print this book using his printing press. So all of these results are always basically the same as the end result of a dispute over those resources. So what you could say is that a copyright is really a transfer of money from one person to another, right? So it's always really a dispute over a resource. It's just a disguised way of doing it because we call it a property right in ideas and if you breach that copyright in ideas, then the damages would be a payment of money. When really you could just reword the copyright law and it could say everyone owns their money unless someone does the following action in which case they have to give their money to someone else. So you see it's just the basis for an excuse to transfer money. It's really redistribution of wealth which basically is socialistic. It takes property from its legitimate previous natural owner and it transfers it to someone else just like taxes would do, for example. So in a sense, it's no different than a tax. Okay, so by having Stefan on this program, you're sort of guessing my political leanings. I tend to be libertarian as well. Tend to be, I am a libertarian. Okay, so I want to play the role of the ignorant plebe here because I more or less am. You said that, let's break down what you just said. So you're saying that the pencil is a extension of myself. It allows me to express myself. A lot of people will say, well, that is why we need intellectual property law in the first place is because, well, my song that I just wrote, that is an extension of myself and it is. Now let's take what you said later in your argument. The only way that IP law, how do I want to say this? You sort of assume that the content creator has absolutely, is completely powerless to do anything to circumvent this. Like you use the example of J.K. Rowling in another article that you wrote. And in this example, like J.K. Rowling, she has, I'm trying to find the right words to say this but you just have this idea that the content creator is absolutely powerless and the only way that they can protect their own content is through this law. But you say that if the content creator takes some pro-action, they can actually flourish in ways that the IP law prevents them from doing so. Yeah, well, I think I know where you're heading with some of this. So let's go back to the pencil for a second. My argument is not that you have a property right in the pencil because it's an extension of yourself.  So, or who's the one who properly should be able to use this thing? So I'm just explaining why the word property has morphed over time and ends up being used to refer to the thing owned itself. The reason you have the right to the pencil is not because it's an extension of yourself because you could imagine other extensions of yourself that you don't have a property right to. So for example, or characteristics, so for example, you have a certain weight right now, and you have a certain color maybe, and you have a certain age, right? And you might have a certain style of laughing. There are many characteristics of you that help define what your nature and identity is, but you don't own those characteristics. If you owned your weight, I don't know what it is, but let's say it's 173 pounds, that means you would own everyone else in the world that weighs 173 pounds. So the problem is you can't own universals or characteristics of things. So it is true the pencil can be considered to be an extension of yourself, and that's why we might say it's your property, it's a property of you. But the reason that you own it is because you have a better claim to it, and it's the type of thing that can be owned. So one thing I didn't mention was how we assign these property rights. It's not just arbitrary. If we want to have a voluntary society that's cooperative and peaceful and productive and everyone can get along, at least possibly, we come up with these property rights to assign the ownership of these possibly disputed things, but those property rights have to be assigned to based upon some fair rules, some kind of objective rules that everyone could recognize as being fair. And those turn out to be only two rules, okay? And creation, by the way, is not one of them, which I'll get to. Those two rules are, number one, if it's an unknown thing, just sitting out there, no one's using it, there is no owner of it, like something in the virgin wilderness. If you are the first person to start using it and do it in a demonstrable way where there's property boundaries or borders set up around it, you put a fence up around a little hut, now you've homesteaded this land. So we call that homesteading or you could call it original appropriation. So the first way to come to own a resource is to be the first one to own it when it was previously unowned. The only other way to come to own a resource is to acquire one that's already owned from someone else voluntarily from them, that is by contract or gift or donation.  Most people think that creation is mixed in with this or it's part or it's another way of coming to own resources, like if you make something, you should own it. But then they analogize from that and say, well, if I make a new horseshoe and I own that new horseshoe, what if I make a new song? Why shouldn't I own the song? Because you've already agreed that people that make things own them. The problem is that's actually not true. It is not true that people that make things own them. And let me explain why. Making something just means transforming it or producing a new arrangement of that thing. So to make a horseshoe, I need to have some iron ore for some metal. I also need to have an anvil and a hammer and a fire and some place to make the horseshoes, right? So I already own some kind of resource like iron ore or whatever you're gonna make a horseshoe out of, okay? So I already own this hunk of metal. I don't know if I found it, I mined it myself or if I purchased it from someone, but I acquired ownership of this ore and then I used my labor, my effort, my intellect, my ideas, my time to transform it into something that's better, better for me, maybe better for customers, whatever. When you do that, you increase your wealth because the things you have are more valuable now, but you don't increase your property rights. You don't add new property rights to the world. It's not like you didn't own the horseshoe before and now you own it. It's like you own this metal, arranged in a certain way, and now you still own the metal even though it's arranged in a different way. So creation is actually not a source of ownership. And this can also be seen if you imagine a thief or an employee, someone who transforms a resource, the raw materials owned by someone else. So let's say I sneak into your house at night and I take your stash of iron ore and I make a bunch of horseshoes out of them. Does that mean I own the horseshoes? No, because I actually am a trespasser and you might not have wanted them to come horseshoes. So I might actually owe you damages for trespassing and ruining your iron ore. Or if you're an employee working for someone and look, I have a horseshoe factory. I have 1,000 employees making horseshoes. I'm just paying them a wage to make the horseshoes. That's the deal. They're using my metal, transforming it into horseshoes which I own. So just because you transform or create something doesn't mean you own it. And in the cases where it does, it's not because you transformed it, it's because you already owned the raw materials that went into it. So this is the reason why the creator of a song doesn't own the song because owning the song would mean owning other people's bodies basically because you could prevent them from singing the song or typing it out on paper. So that's one way to look at it. The other thing is if you realize the nature and the history of these rules, I mean, look, copyright came about when the printing press started emerging and the ruling classes, the church and the state started getting nervous because before they had control over these scribes, these people that had to hand copy everything one by one and they had control over this through the church. But now the printing press started threatening this and started threatening to allow mass printed, mass produced works to get out into the hands of the people even if the church and the state didn't want them to read this stuff, okay? Or it wasn't the approved version. So for a few centuries, the state used various mechanisms to keep control of this. It was a type of thought controller censorship. They had the stationers company, which is the official printing guild in England. And then when that monopoly that lasted about a hundred something years started to expire, by then you had the printing industry had built up but they were all in cahoots with the state because they would only print things the government and the church would allow them to print. And if you had to print a book, you had to go through the official printing company to do it. So you see the government and the church kept control of what books were printed using this mechanism. And when the stationers company's monopoly started to expire, parliament established the statute of monopolies. I'm sorry, the statute of Ann. Statute of monopolies was how they got patents started. The statute of Ann basically started modern copyright. So copyright comes out of the states and the church's ability to control what could be printed. So you can see that the roots of copyright lie in censorship and you can see that it operates this way today.  Even if you photograph it independently and originally, but you stand in the same location that some other photographer did, you take a picture of the same natural items, you could be sued for copyright infringement. If you post a song on YouTube, someone could send a DMCA takedown notice claiming that they own a copyright in some aspect of it and they will be taken down. So if you have a documentary and you want to produce a documentary, it's almost impossible to do documentaries now without stripping them of lots of content because you can't get permission from people that have bits and pieces of things you wanted to use in your documentary. So there's a tremendous hampering of artistic freedom under the copyright system. One resource that I found very helpful was Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine, a couple of professors, I believe in St. Louis, is it? Yes. And from what I understand, they set out to disprove what you're saying right now and they were going to, I guess they were going to prove that intellectual property, the whole concept of intellectual property is legitimate and they, in their studies, their research, they ended up completely changing course, completely disagreeing with themselves what they had at the outset and wrote this book called Against Intellectual Monopoly. Do I have that right? Yeah, that's right. Let me put this, their work into context. The way that some of us, probably yourself and me, would approach these type of issues is from a more of a rights-based or a principled approach. So we sometimes talk about what natural human rights are and this is connected with property rights. And so most of the argument I've given is practical but that's because property is a practical institution but we're explaining basically that a copyright or a patent basically violates someone's rights because a copyright prevents me from using my property as I see fit. A patent prevents me from using my property as I see fit. So that's a violation of my natural right to property, my natural ownership of my body and myself. That's one way to look at it, okay? The prevailing way that most people nowadays look at things is more pragmatic or utilitarian or consequentialist, you could say, basically people look at the effects of laws and they say, well, I mean, you and I would say the purpose of law is to do justice and you do justice by protecting people's rights. You protect people's rights by identifying what those rights are and all rights are property rights and they should be identified according to the first user principle and contract like I mentioned earlier. So that's sort of the libertarian analytical approach to this but nowadays everything is sort of all soupy and not as precise. People say, well, we need a law here because we need this effect. So people say, well, we don't have enough stimulation of the arts, so therefore we need the government to have the national endowment for the arts and take some money from some people in the form of taxes and then have a government agency that distributes money to needy artists, right? Who otherwise would not have enough money to engage in their projects. So the argument there is there's some optimal amount of artistic production in society and we're below that optimum and the government can use its laws to tweak things to achieve this optimal result. And a similar argument is used nowadays for copyright. Even though copyright arose as a method of censorship and thought control, now it's defenders who are entrenched in various industries, right? They use these utilitarian justifications. So the argument for copyright would be that if you don't have copyright it would be hard for some artists to make money because someone could just knock off their work. It would be hard for me to license my music, right? Without copyright. Now, Bolger and Levine approach it from that point of view. They just are utilitarians who look at the law like economists do and they say, does this law have the optimal effects that it claims or does it not? And they were under the assumption like everyone else is that you need copyright and patent. They're like a normal part of a capitalist Western property rights system and that you need that to stimulate the arts and innovation. Maybe we can improve it, maybe we can tweak it, but let's just do a study. Let's see, we should be able to prove that the existence of copyright and patent have benefited society enormously. We should be able to show this. So they started doing empirical studies looking for evidence, looking for example, looking for data. And over time, they both realized, oh my God, patent and copyright actually deter innovation and they distort the cultural fields and they hamper innovation and they reduce the content and they cause bullying and they extract the money from consumers and XYZ. So they basically concluded in their book that copyright and patent should basically, they're not quite as radical and libertarian as you and I are, but they ultimately conclude that patent and copyright do not do what they're claimed to do and that we'd be better off without them. Man, well, we mentioned earlier J.K. Rowling and I wanna talk a little bit about practical application of how musicians, musicpreneurs can work within the system in which we are currently. And I was just about to say something. Well, well, let's get- Well, I could take off from what you just said though. I like your expression of musicpreneur because it recognizes the entrepreneurial aspect of- Right, and what I, okay, I got it. What I was saying is that people who are still listening to this, I'm gonna assume that you're into what we're saying, may not totally agree quite yet. Maybe you probably wanna listen to this again. I'm gonna have several resources for you to read more about it, but I'm gonna assume that people still listening to this, they want to, they're here because they wanna make some money with their music. And I wanna talk about how can we work within the system that we're currently in because copyright, it's good if you are a major publishing source, not so good if you're an independent. So what are some avenues that people can pursue so that they can ensure maximum exposure for their music, but at the same time, protect their integrity? Yeah, and then here's where some of the advice and things I've seen and come up with, half of it is my lawyer hat and what I've seen assisting clients and talking to people who are creators of different types. We have to separate patents and copyright. And let's stick with copyright here. The way you respond to the patent system is different than the way you respond to the copyright system. My view is that patents damaged us materially more than copyrights do. My estimates, patents probably cost us a trillion dollars or more a year in lost innovation and costs on a worldwide basis. Copyrights don't cause as much, say, measurable material harm, but I think copyright is even worse than patents because number one, the terms last a lot longer. They last over a hundred years in most cases. And it's being used, it's used by copyright bullies and by states to restrict internet freedom. If you remember, SOPA almost passed a couple of years ago and it's probably gonna pass in some form, eventually in piecemeal form. In fact, the treaty that Trump is apparently against that Hillary claimed to be against at the last minute had some SOPA-like provisions in it which would have put them into a treaty with countries that amounted to 40% of the world. SOPA is, remind me, SOPA. All right, that was a Stop Online Piracy Act. That would have been a federal law that made it much easier for companies to basically kick you off the internet for life as a punishment for engaging in piracy. So it basically restricts internet freedom or take people's websites down if there's an allegation of copyright infringement. So basically in the name of copyright, which is allegedly a property right of creators, you have this being used as an excuse by the state to increase state control and big corporate control of the internet and restrict internet freedom, which is very dangerous, of course. So the point is, copyright, the good thing about copyright is that you don't have to participate in the system. You do get a copyright automatically. You can't help it under federal law and international law. As soon as you produce any kind of creative work, you have a copyright, but you don't have to register it. You don't have to enforce it. And in fact, you can use Creative Commons licenses or other mechanisms in the field of software. You can use the software type licenses and you can participate in a system of open sourcing things. And I really think, and the other thing you can do is try not to deal with, try not to assign your copyrights away to a music studio or one of these publishers because then you lose control of it, okay?  They're gonna make it hard for your name to get out there because piracy is going to be more limited. So unless you're really in it solely for the money right now and you have the capacity to make so much money as a regular sort of mainstream artist that even getting only 15% of the royalties because the music studios and the book publishers are gonna take the bulk of it, right? Then I think you're better off being independent. So my next book I'm gonna self publish. I'm not gonna go through a publisher because it would delay me by a year. They're gonna insist on some changes which I don't wanna make, right? And then they're gonna publish it for way higher price than I want to. They're not gonna consent to me putting a free PDF online let's say for marketing purposes or to get my name out there. There's just so much liberty and freedom that you have and especially with the technology now, right? I mean, we all heard stories of these guys that are publishing, well, if you talk about music itself of course, I think we all know by now that a lot of musicians make their money from gigs, right? From concerts. But who's gonna pay you to do a gig or for a concert if they'd never heard of you?  So I mean, most concerts I go to the musicians have a stack of CDs and yeah, they're selling them. I don't think they're making their money out of the CDs. Sometimes they give them away. They want people to know their music, right? So I think it was Corey Doctor or a science-fiction author who said the real danger that a budding artist faces is not piracy, it's obscurity. So it just makes no sense to try to restrict a budding fan base. So of course, these are practical things that you can do. You can also be careful not to assign away your works unknowingly and then there are practical things you can do. You can use open source music as sort of backgrounds in your podcast and things like that instead of using a 20 second cut from a popular artist risking getting shut down or sued by their studio, et cetera. Yeah, the music that I use for this podcast, I know the guy that produced it and I just sent him a message and said, hey, can I use your song for my podcast? He said, sure, no problem. Well, you know, one interesting thought experiment, it's a little bit on a tangent here, but at the present time, you can just use public domain work, which is basically work that's say more than 70 years old. So a lot of times people use old cartoons and old advertisements and old book manuscripts and classical music from 100 plus years ago because they know that that's safe, right? Right. In a way, this distorts the culture because we have the last 50 years worth of stuff is like not on the shelf of the tools you can use. So it distorts the culture a little bit, but imagine the world in 10,000 years. Okay, let's just go way into the future. The body of human artistic output that is going to exist on P2 drives in people's pockets, it's gonna be immense.  So like 99.9% of all human artistic output would be available in the public domain. And so it won't be as big of a barrier to creative freedom in 10,000 years, just because the fraction of new stuff will be so much smaller. You know, when I started this business, Music Prenuer, I registered the word Music Prenuer along with the tagline, Making Money, Making Music. And I didn't do that because I wanted to prevent anyone else from using that word. If anything, the more people that use it, the better it is for me because that's the name of my business and the more brand recognition, the better as far as I'm concerned. But the reason that I registered it and I put in the paperwork in July, here it is, January, still haven't heard from the government, they move at their own special speed, but that's another story. But the reason that I did it is because I didn't want someone else to profit off of my success. And what I mean by that is, let's say that this business takes off and it's worth $5 million, two years from now, three years from now, whatever. Someone could register the word Music Prenuer and then contact me and say, hey, you can't use that word anymore. If you want to use it, you have to pay me $70,000 a year or a month or something. Yes, and now you're getting to, when you say register, you're talking about trademark, which is yet another type of intellectual property, right? Which we haven't even touched on. Yeah, maybe we'll talk about that in the future. Yeah, we can and I can just say briefly here that I'm opposed to trademark as well, but for other reasons. I think in today's climate, it makes total sense to register your trademark. But again, what you can do with that is trademark is a little bit different than copyright and patent. You don't have to enforce a patent or copyright, but trademark has the feature where if you don't enforce it, then you could lose it over time. And then again, you're facing the danger that you think you might face before, which is someone else might register that as a trademark and then prevent you from using your own name. So what you can do is trademark it and then whenever you see someone else using it, you just send them a letter and you say, you're using my trademark, I'm happy to give you permission to do so for a dollar a year. Or some marginal fee, so that you have an official license, they recognize your trademark, but they're in the clear, you're not threatening them and you keep your trademark alive that way. So there are little tips and tricks like that that you can do to navigate within the existing system. Right. Well, you're the Austrian system of economics and I know that this is a music podcast, but we're entrepreneurs too, so you have to understand the way things work with economics as well. So that's why I want to, and that's why I'm not bashful about having Stefan Kinsella on here because you just have to understand the world if you want to be an entrepreneur. But the system of property that you're describing, that's very much in the tradition of John Locke versus like a Hobbes, Thomas Hobbes. So where do you think the philosophy behind this intellectual property comes from? It's definitely not John Locke and the founding of America. That's the type of, where does it have its foundation? Well, I think the historical foundation is, for copyright was really in this thought control censorship. And in patents it was more protectionism, like the king granting a monopoly to one of his cronies in a given town, like the only guy who could export cheap skin or something. So he just did that to get loyalty from this guy and maybe the guy would give him some kickbacks, help him collect taxes, things like that. But something that Boldren and Levine were saying, they said that England had these copyright laws, but then English British authors would sell their books in the US or in the colonies where there was no law and they would flourish. Whereas in Britain, they didn't do as well. Well, yeah, what happened was, now we have more of an international system where we have these treaties like the Berne Convention. So all these countries, most of the countries in the world agree to abide by certain minimum standards, but which is how the US and the copyright, the music industry, Hollywood and the software industry have sort of, and the pharmaceutical industry especially have exported our copyright and patent laws to the rest of the world for the benefit of a big American corporations. But in the beginning, in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, in the beginning of the United States, we had a copyright and a patent system, but there were no international treaties. And so we had copyright here, but it didn't extend to foreign authors. So some foreign author like Charles Dickens, his book could be knocked off in the US because he was a foreign author, but it turned out that they did better in markets over here than local authors did because their works were easy to knock off and spread and they became popular and they gave, speaking tours and things like that. So, yeah. And musicians these days, they shouldn't be worried about people knocking off their music. It's, if anything, it helps bolster their brand, it helps them sell hats and tickets. I would look at it like this. In a copyright free world, people can copy your stuff without your permission, but they can do that now. There is piracy going on, right? So we've reached a point where it's not gonna ever get harder to copy things. The internet's the world's biggest copying machine. And it's only gonna get easier from here on out to copy. So all authors of works that are easy to copy, someone who makes a movie, someone who does photography, a painting, writes novels, whatever. They face the fact that it's easy for people to copy what they're doing. So that's a fact. No matter how draconian we make the laws, trying to make a few examples out of the few people that we can catch, that's happening. So they have to face that reality already. I would say that in a world, look, artists thrive on freedom. They're about freedom. They should be for freedom. They should be for justice, right? And just as they have learned from others and always will learn from others and borrow from others, they're part of an incremental process. They've added their small piece to advance whatever they're doing in their field, but they stand on the shoulders of others and others are gonna stand on their shoulders. This is part of the way the world works. I would also say this, look, an entrepreneur is someone who sees some kind of gap in the market or some kind of way to make money. He invests his time and resources, hoping to make a profit. Now, in a sense, this is an economics insight, profit is an unnatural thing. In other words, the more profit you're making, the more you're going to attract competitors and they're gonna come in and start eating with you and whittle your profit away down to basically the natural rate of interest in society. So profit is always an unnatural thing that happens because an entrepreneur spots some anomaly in the market that he can temporarily exploit. So every entrepreneur in the world faces the prospect of competition. They just try to become better or have a better reputation or get there first. So as a simple example, if I notice there's this craze of taco restaurants spreading around the country, right? Like up until now it's been pizza and hamburgers, but notice that, hey, Arizona, they really like those tacos there. So I start a little chain of taco restaurants in Texas, let's say, and they're popular. Now, I might be the first one and I can charge a lot for the tacos at first, but soon, someone's down the street who's looking for a way to park their money or something to do, they're gonna say, well, I'll start Joe's taco stand and I'll start competing with this guy and they start taking some of the business away. So it's only a matter of time before there's lots of them and it's harder for the original guy to make the same profit he used to. So he's gotta keep innovating or maybe he goes out of business eventually, right? So you have McDonald's and Burger King and the hamburger industry and you have Taco Bell and Taco Cabana and others in the taco industry. The point is every entrepreneur faces the challenge of figuring out how to make a profit even though he's going to eventually face competition. So in abstract terms, that's exactly the situation of some musician who wants to profit from their work. The only difference is one of degree, not of kind. That is, it seems to them like it's easier for people to compete because their product is purely digital and easy to copy. Unlike a taco stand where you have to buy a building and it might take a few years to get some investors and hire some employees and start making competing tacos. So it's not as easy to compete. In certain fields where a key aspect of the product is an easily copyable pattern of information on a disk. And as I said, with the internet and with digital technology and with mass storage becoming cheaper and cheaper and cheaper, copying is just very, very easy now, right? So what that means is it's simply easier for people to compete with you in certain fields if you have a certain business model. So all this means is it's up to the musical entrepreneur to recognize this and to try to find a way to make a profit despite the fact that he's going to have competition. So you can sing at a concert and that's not something anyone else can do. If you're famous for a given group of fans, you are the only one they want to hear, right? So you can charge a reasonable amount for a concert or for a bar mitzvah or to make a song for someone for their kid's birthday. I don't know, help them do a music video like Rebecca Black. Yeah, love Rebecca Black. Yeah, so the point is it's not the job of the law and it's not the job of economists either to tell entrepreneurs how to make money. That's the entrepreneur's jobs. They have to be aware of how different business models can be easily copied or competed with and take that into account. And some business models might not be viable because it's too hard to maintain a profit. But that's always been true in human history. Well, Stefan, we're running short on time and but I want to close with just a couple of thoughts from you. You mentioned earlier 10,000 years. Imagine the world 10,000 years from now. It's maybe a little difficult to do that. But I'd like to imagine you're well versed in this and judging on what you've seen in the past. Where do you see the world in 10 years from now in the realm of intellectual property? I don't see any statutory or legal progress that's significant in patents or copyrights coming anytime soon. And that's because the interests are so entrenched. But the good thing is it's becoming easier and easier to get around these laws. So in the field of copyright, number one, like I said, it's getting easier and easier to pirate. And that is putting a lot of pressure on publishers to act more like they would have to act in a free market anyway. It's also getting easier to encrypt things so that you're not gonna be caught as easily to use VPNs for your dial-up so that you don't get caught torrenting as easily. And also the spread of the, in the software field, we saw this earlier. We saw that I'm not really, I don't really know what percentage but I would guess maybe half of the software in the US let's say is probably generated by some kind of an open model. I mean, it's not trivial, it's a lot. It could be even more than half. That has led to the widespread, sort of basically doing an end-run around copyright. Without copyright, the model would still be different. You wouldn't need a license at all. But you're emulating more what a copyright-free system would look like. Now in the field of books and music, I think you're seeing in the last 10 or 15 years a similar phenomenon slowly starting to happen with the increasing use of Creative Commons to sort of partly open up your works, your photographs, people's paintings, and the rise of self-publishing which helps get around the publishing industry and the gatekeepers which really are a relic of the old censorship and copyright system. So I think the publishing industries are gonna start kind of crumbling more and more and you're gonna have more and more independent artists. So that's, I see copyright becoming more and more irrelevant because few and few people choose to use it and more people can get around it, innovate it. I put a note saying, forcing the establishment to act like entrepreneurs. I love that. All right, Stefan, is it? StefanConcella.com is the website. Great read if you are interested at all in what he said. I promise that I didn't get any, I didn't understand more than 40%. I have to listen to this again myself. So it's not something that you can just listen to and understand in one take it takes, in some cases, many years to really grasp what we're talking about here. So Stefan, I wanna say thank you for being on the show. Hopefully we can do it again if people have some questions that they wanted some clarification on. But really appreciate it, thanks again. You're welcome, happy to do it. The show notes for this episode can be found at musicpreneur.com slash IP. Very easy to remember, musicpreneur.com slash IP. It's going to have a outline of the conversation with StefanConcella and myself. And I'm also gonna make the PDF doing business without intellectual property available right there on that show notes page. So I hope you enjoyed it. I hope that it at least gave you a bit of a balanced perspective on this topic. I learned quite a bit just listening to Stefan in this interview and I had and I've studied this topic for several years now. So there's always something to learn. And you know what, if you have questions, if you need clarification on something that Stefan said, send me an email, send him an email. He responds to, he responds to every email I've sent him. So I don't see any reason why he wouldn't respond to you. I'll just say that you heard his interview on this podcast and he is more than happy to share his knowledge and provide any clarification. So I don't know if there's enough questions then maybe we can have him back on and do a little Q and A on the topic of intellectual property. So that does it for today. I've got an exciting announcement that I'm going to share on this Friday's episode.  So this is James Newcomb signing off. Thank you for listening and look forward to seeing you next time.


Admiral John Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, will be heading overseas to speak to sailors on his first international trip as C&O October 12th. The trip will begin in Hawaii where the C&O and McPon will celebrate the Navy's 240th birthday, and will continue with trips to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Bahrain, and conclude in Italy. SACNAV seeks to recognize individuals or teams who have made significant innovative achievements through his Innovation Awards program. Command and organizations can submit their nominations by October 31st. For more information, visit the SACNAV's innovation page. More than 4,000 sailors and Marines from the Curesarge Amphibious Ready Group and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit departed for deployment October 6th. The Curesarge ARG 26th Mew Team will provide a versatile sea-based force that can be tailored to a variety of missions in support of the nation's maritime strategy. For these stories and more, visit navy.mil.


This is the question, that what does Islam say about homosexuality and if it's wrong, why it is wrong? There's one rhetorical style used by Dr Zakir Naik that sets him apart from other scholars of Islam and I can make tons of videos on them. This style that got me researching into the makeup of his wisdom and vast philosophical mind is that of giving people the opportunity to ask genuine questions about theological issues and then offering them veritable answers that convince them to take very bold steps in line with their newfound reality. It was actually a direct beneficiary of this opportunity. Dr Zakir Naik presented doubt in prospective Muslims. In my turn, I asked a very important question. The answer to this question for me, as a student of Christian theology, was satisfactory because it touched on the fundamental issues that had be clouded my quest to step into Islam. So when I saw the video of this lady, I was not only started by intelligence but also by her open-mindedness and honesty. Speaking about open-mindedness and honesty, which are the very watch words of this channel, the Quran commands individuals to be truthful in all aspects of their lives and to avoid the sit-for behavior. I am thrilled by what Allah said in Sira al-Hutra verses 13, I quote, O Mankind, we have created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another verily. The most honorable of you with Allah is that believer who has piety and righteousness.  Be just that is nearest to righteousness. As-salamu alaykum brothers and sisters, welcome to another episode of the open-minded thinker show. As our customs demand, please like and share this video in charity so that it can get to a lot of people who need this message. Don't forget to subscribe as well to help us grow. It's Priya. Priya. First of all, I would like to thank you for opening my eyes to how important it is to not follow any faith or religion blindly. Mashallah. Now, I realize how important it is to have questions to what you should and should not follow blindly. So my question is for why was Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the last prophet and no one after to guide in this sinful world? My sister asked a very good question. That why Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the last and final messenger. Why will no other messenger come after him? That's a very good question. People also asked me that why wasn't Prophet Muhammad sending the first and Quran revealed first and no problem. Both questions are valid, both are valid. Like my son says that I want to become a doctor. Why don't you put me medically call it directly? I said, no brother, first you have to go. My son to the Nasri, Junaikeji, first standard, second standard. So Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala our creator, He knows the human being the best. He knows what is the final message. He knows that the human beings have not yet developed to receive the last and final message. So therefore all the previous messages that came, they give the basic message of Tauheed, believing in one God. The Quran is the last and final messenger which is the perfect and the final message. All the other message was perfect but they were in brief.  Then mathematics 1, 2, 3, 4, 2 plus 3 is equal to 4. Then you study other things, multiplication, division and you keep on evolving. Similarly Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala knew that when human beings were there, first he gave them simple message depending upon the development and Allah thought 1400 years ago was the right time that now human beings have developed to assimilate the Quran. Christian theologians have argued that the consistency of a divine revelation with previous known revelations, I mean confirmed ones is the major of its truthfulness. Thus consistency is a key indicator of the reliability of a message. If a message is inconsistent, it can be challenging to determine what its true meaning is and it may be prone to misinterpretation. So Christianity with its changing narratives and interpretation of the scriptures have so far shown that the messages may have been corrupted from the cradle. But the beauty of the Quran is Allah knew that human beings would further develop but the minimum requirement to receive the Quran was 1400 years ago. You mean being that they since hundreds of thousands and millions of years, Allah wala, we don't know. We don't know. So what did Allah do? Allah reveals the last and final message, the Quran and the last and final messenger, Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam because when the last message comes, it has a time period and the last messenger comes is the final messenger. So Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala when He revealed the last and final message. Allah says in the Quran in Surah Maida chapter 5 verse 3 on this day have I completed your religion for you and have chosen Islam for you and have completed my favor for you. Allah is telling the human beings on this day this was the last verse of the Quran to be revealed I have completed my religion for you and have chosen for you Islam. Now once Allah has completed the religion nothing new can be added, nothing can be subtracted. If something is added that means the previous thing wasn't complete, correct? Allah 5, 10 fingers, if you are 11, it's not complete. So Allah has completed the deen and completed the last and final revelation, the Quran by the last and final messenger Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam where this mentioned, as I said in my lecture Surah Azab chapter 33 verse number 40 That prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is not the father of human but he is the messenger of Allah and seal of the prophets. Now why did now when Allah revealed the last and final message the human beings keep on developing and we understand the Quran better science they develop the way we understand the Quran now we understand a little bit better of the Quran because science they develop but the message is the same. Now since the message will not change we don't require a messenger. So what does Allah do? Allah tells the Muslim tells the Muslim it is your duty now to deliver the message. Yes, it is now your duty to deliver the message you can do it in various farms such as sharing videos like this or even starting a YouTube Dawa channel of your own and make use of your talent to let messages like this spread around the globe. And still are the issue of reliability of the Divine Revolution as pointed out by Dr Zakhar Nigh in this case Islam consistency according to different religious texts provides strong evidence of the truthfulness of prophetic message the Bible and the Quran are very different religious texts right with different authors right languages and historical context right however there are many of the same prophetic message that provide strong evidence that these messages are based on real events and that have been consistently passed down through different cultures and generation over the ages the Quran is consistent and thus the last message. There is no new message, no new messenger but Allah thought to it that he told the Muslim Ummah that we have to deliver the message to the others and he said that the best profession for the Muslim is of Adai which I touched in my talk. So because the Prophet was the last messenger and because the Quran was the last message the Prophet Muhammad was the last messenger and I said him and talk because he was the last messenger he was Ramaz-ul-Alamin if he was not he would have been only the Arab world correct if he was if there is one more messenger to come he would have been meant only for one group of people maybe the Arab world maybe the Quran was meant only for 100 years 1000 years 2000 we don't know so because Allah says this is the last and final revelation and Prophet Muhammad is the last and final messenger it is meant for the whole of humanity that the reason the status of the Prophet is higher because the status is higher and the message is higher you can see the transformation much faster today in the world more than 25% of the human population are Muslims today in the world the most look down upon people in the world are the Muslims the most targeted people in the world are the Muslims the most criticized people in the world are the Muslims everyone is against us yet the message is going it is the end of time sister so because it is the end of time there will be no other messenger but the power of the message is so strong it is encompassing many people in the world the previous people who accepted the religion Christianity etc. they were just namesake today in the world when people say Christians they don't follow Christianity the people that follow any religion practically following any religion number one is Islam so the basic answer sister is because the message is last the messenger has to be last but the message is so strong and the messenger is so loving, so powerful so universal that it is transforming the world hope that answer the questions the message is strong he says and yes it is this is what I have been promoting for basically since this channel started the only true believers right now are the Muslims and this is just very obvious there are the ones that keep the faith practice their religion and take their deen so seriously oh yes yes mostly so I just had a last question why did Allah create this world and put us through this test when he had to end it and the world again sister asked another important question that why did Allah create this world and put us into it why? if he has to end it so the answer to this question is given in sorry Dhariat chapter 15 verse 50 is given it is that we have created not but the men in the jinn but worship this life sister is the test for the hereafter Allah says in the Quran in surah mulk chapter 67 verse 2 it's Allah who has created death and life to test which of you is good indeed so this life sister is the test for the hereafter like you are asking a teacher why are you taking examination in the examination sister some people pass some people fail correct so if you follow the guideline of the teacher you will pass if you don't follow you will fail so the teacher is testing who is worth passing so Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala mentioned in the Quran asked who would like to undergo this test Allah says in the Quran we human beings were fools who accepted the mountains shuddered we will not accept so Allah says who would like to undergo this test of course you and I don't remember you and I don't remember on the day of judgment again we will remember so Allah says in the Quran that the mountains shuddered we human beings were fools who accepted the challenge if you pass you become higher than the angels we humans are a creation of Allah who follow everything what Allah says they have no option so if they have no option they cannot go against so what is great they are following Allah they are good so if human beings who have been giving the option to go against Allah or follow the commandment of Allah we have a free will if we follow the commandment of Allah after being given a free will then we become higher than the angels if we don't follow so Allah asks us do you want to undergo the test where all the others are Muslims the tree is a Muslim the mountain is a Muslim that means they are just Muslims we human beings we have a choice after being given a free will if you obey the commandment you become the highest well he made a familiar point here about man and the angels and role of the free will explicated these from the prism of Christian Islam etiology angels have free will just as man does the difference is that angels are in build with knowledge of the actual will of God and thus act according to it however man lacks this knowledge and understanding of things he acts with infiteration of his sinful nature and sometimes makes wrong decisions yet man can be rewarded even greater than the angels if he follows the deen an emerges victorious against the world flesh and Satan sister do you believe there is one God yes I do do you believe prophet Muhammad is the messenger of God yes I do do you believe idol worship is wrong yes definitely so if you believe if you believe that there is one God and you believe idol worship is wrong and you believe that prophet Muhammad is the messenger of God then according to me you are a Muslim sister would you like to say this other would you like to say it in Arabic there are tears of joy sister would you like to enter the fold according to me you are already a Muslim would you like to proclaim it yes masha Allah I hope no one is forcing you sister you are doing it out of your own free will yes and I am asking you because you said that you have heard my lecture so surely you may be having a substantial some knowledge of Islam masha Allah sister I will just say it in Arabic and you can repeat it sister Ashadu Allah have the microphone close Allah Islaa Islaa Ashadu Anna Muhammad Abduhu Rasuluhu I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear witness that prophet Muhammad is the messenger and servant of Allah and servant of Allah Takbir Amazing Shahada I love this moment I can remember my very own please share and like this video let it get to see the end of the world very amazing Shahada let's live it there brothers and sisters until next time Asalaamu Alaikum


What's up everybody? Jason here for jasperjapskagespray.com. 2022 tops, forming the one Chrome racing hobby. Six bucks, half Kagespray, random teams. Number two just sold out. And again guys, 10 total spots. Everybody gets a random team from the list below. All cards shift. So again guys, 10 total spots. There's a 10 teams and there is a couple combos or maybe just one actually. All F2 and other cards listed. Like track cards, et cetera. So here's the dice roll. Here's the customer names. Taylor, down to Dayton. And then we got Oracle down to F2 and other cards listed. So let's click dice roll, boom. Two and a six, eight times. Good luck. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Two and a six, eight times. Taylor, down to Ed. Eight times, eight times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight, Oracle down to Williams Racing. All right, so eight times, eight times, eight times. Taylor with Oracle, Red Bull Racing. Taylor with McLauren. Sean with Alpine. Aaron with Ashton Martin, sorry. Ed with Alpha Romero. Robert Runkle with Haas and Scuderia Ferrari. Dave with Mercedes. Sean Madagab, the combo. All F2 plus other cards listed. And Ed with Williams Racing. So I'm gonna quickly pause the video. See if there's any trades and when we come back, we'll get the spray going. All right, guys, welcome back. There was no trades, so let's print. So this is the second half. Actually, give me a sec, let me put this here. All right, second half here, guys.  I mean, as you can see, this price point of these boxes have dropped down significantly. The 2020 F1 Chrome was wild. Boxes are selling for like nearly $1,800, $1,600 a box, and they only started at like at $200 a box, and then 2021 came around, and those sold for like $1,400 at one point. Then everything kind of went back to normal, dropped down to reality, and now these boxes are only a couple hundred now. But I figure, you know, some of these racers, these drivers like Bristop and Hamilton, Leclerc, they'll sell extremely well, nothing like those crazy 2020, 2021 years. But we did get that nice Lewis Hamilton in the first half, but I feel like there could still be a lot more. Teddy has been just lying through these. He did like five cases on release night, then Chris went on yesterday. He did like another couple yesterday, Teddy did a couple more today. So, personal, I think it's been great because the box price is not too crazy high. He's just been saying a whole case has just been massive. I'm actually curious to see what's in this second half because although Lewis Hamilton was really nice, he said that he's seen better hits when I hit like that as well in a case. Of course, every case is different, but I'm hoping that him seen so much. All right, so we're ripped here. Yeah, I mean, it's always tough, it's kind of like a normal sport, right?  The rest you're kind of hoping for something else, but it's just tricky with group breaks, right? I mean, because let's say we combo up more and then that means that there's less spots which costs more money. And plus, I think some drivers have actually like, bounced around, right? He's now in like Mercedes, what was his name? I forget the driver's name, I gotta see his face. So it makes it even more valuable. But yeah, I mean, if that's something that you think so too, I mean, we can figure that out too. Maybe I can talk to Nick about it. Ah, there it is, yeah, George Russell. He's now on, he's now in Mercedes, or what, he's with Lewis Hamilton now, isn't he? So yeah, it's a little tricky, I mean. No worries, Dayton, I'll show it to you right now, buddy. Last spot mojo, baby. Last spot mojo for you, Dayton. Mercedes, baby, not too shabby, right?  Can we get the autos? Worst car I've ever owned?  My first ever car was probably the worst one of all because it was a little old. 1996 Honda Civic, that was my baby though. That was gifted to me by my sister, that was her car in the 90s. I got it with like 200,000 miles. It was like roll up windows, you know. The AC didn't work, so summertime here was horrible driving. But I used that thing to shit, it couldn't have been used no more. I put on like 70,000 miles on that bad boy. So I'd have to say that was like my worst car ever. But that's just because it was my first car. And then I've been Kia gang the whole time. Had a Forte, then went to an Optima, and now I have a K5. So at 96 Honda Civic, I was driving it from like 2010, 2011 to like 2015. George Russell. Also two guys for the people that I haven't seen a lot more. I don't know which ones are the variations. I know they're most likely usually refractor, but for me sometimes, just because I haven't ripped too much of it, I can't really tell. So I always like to look at the card number in the back sometimes. Here, Gassie is re-99, good area. Daniel Ricardo to 50. That was a clear. And then JQ's. F2. Autograph.  Card number six. That's not the variation, is it? Sergio Pérez, the orange red. Ultimar for Alphine. The 299. Maybe. Maybe he could be related. Maybe not a brother. The last brother was in the World Junior Championships. We got Stine. Stine? I don't know. That depends. We had to see the last brother in the NHL. At least give me a year or two to see him and then we can decide. But I mean, Quinn plays defense, so I guess you could still have the best career, right? Give me more like who has the best career.  That's the 75. That's for Spuderia Ferrari. Sebastian Vitelle, Esteban. Esteban again, the 299. Sergio Pérez. Mike Schumacher. Marino Sato. Louis on a little bike. Or is that what he was in there, right? I remember seeing Bill Ford's out here like a promenade, like, I'll never forget him. Yeah. And I was just a little bit slow at it. The alley is full. Yeah. Lance Strong. Well, my favorite one is Greg where I get on and on to a freeway at Rose Grants. Yeah, Ford, you should pass. I mean, got Red Bull Racing 299, right? Yeah, put up the fortune mark that wins four years in a month. And every time, I had to come back for a month. Every time, just smiling you in this suit. Yeah. All right, let's go to the next three now, guys. All right, guys, here we go, three boxes left. Richard Vershor, a purple checker, flag. Looks cool. It's like a postcard. I think they actually have those, like, oversize too, don't they? Purple gold, Landon Norris. That is a McLaren. Nice little Louis. Sergio Perez. Louis Hamilton, purple. Number 2, 399. Leclerc, just 75. Max Verstappen. And we got our second auto. Dorivala. Jehan Dorivala. And that is for F2 Prima Racing. All of two cars, of course, by Nishan Matic. William Lawson. All right, two boxes left. Sergio Perez. Esteban O'Conn. Purple checker to 199. Louis B. Demons. Carlos Verstappen, gold, purple. Leclerc again right there. Landon Norris. Are any of these potentially short prints? Like I've never seen that Landon before. Drogovic. Orange Vorshor to 25. And Drogovic. Autograph Green. That is F2 MP Motorsport. Another one for the all F2 Sean Matic to 99. Yeah, dude, it was gonna be a lot of Louis Hamilton's, man. JQ's. Bolta. Alpha Romero. And the last box, guys, here we go. Sebastian Detail. George Russell, purple, green. Mick Schumacher. Here's the rookie in the last one. That's a Haas, gonna rob a runkel. And nice Max Verstappen, gold. Gold. 18 and 50. That is Red Bull Oracle. Going to Taylor, extra stop and refractor. Sergio Perez, that's a cool little insert. We got Sam. There you go. So again, everything does ship, so don't worry. The main, main stuff. Got, I think three autos on this side. Like Louis Hamilton refractor there, it was really cool. I just top loaded, because I don't know if it was like a short print or anything like that. But of course, all this stuff here, colors, numbered cards, will all be top loaded there. And again, guys, this was the last promo brick to unlock the promo. So I don't think I have put you guys in the list yet, right? Let's put you guys right now. F1, Tops Chrome, or sorry, let's go. Tops Chrome F1, two. All right, so there you go, guys. That was the last promo brick we needed to do to sell out the promo. So in a separate video right now, I'll get the names together, we'll randomize the names, and we'll give away $1,500. Appreciate it, guys. Next case on the website is from Refreshcase, number three, jaspyscasebrace.com.


You may have heard that ICBC is in financial trouble. It is. And it's serious. ICBC is on track to lose $1.3 billion this year. In early February, our government announced reforms aimed at saving ICBC a billion dollars a year. Changes that will reduce legal expenses and use those savings to get ICBC back on its feet and dramatically improve accident benefits for those hurting crashes. These benefits have not been increased in 25 years. We want to ensure that those who are injured and crashes have access to the care they need and we want our public insurer to deliver affordable insurance rates for BC families. But there's more we can do. And we will. Current insurance rates in our province aren't fair. Low-risk drivers with perfect records are paying more than they should. Meanwhile, high-risk drivers who are driving costs up for everyone aren't paying enough. We want to fix this problem. We'll do this by making changes to the current auto insurance rating system. Changes that will hold all drivers more accountable for their decisions and their driving behavior. This means that low-risk drivers will be rewarded by paying less and high-risk drivers will help offset the cost they're increasing by paying more. We'd like your thoughts on these changes. We have questions about how ICBC should use accident claims or driver experience in determining how much someone should pay for basic insurance. How much things like speeding tickets or other driving convictions should influence insurance costs both optional and basic. How much of a discount low-risk drivers should enjoy and how much of an additional premium high-risk drivers should pay and how insurance pricing should be set to reflect risk due to where in the province you're driving or how often you're driving. I hope you'll take some time to learn about these changes and then let us know what you think by taking part in this important survey. Your feedback will help us keep life affordable for British Columbians.