Hey, this is Stefan Kinsella. This will be Kinsella on Liberty episode 415 415 What I'm gonna do today is this I'm gonna like do a video commentary on a video Recently produced by Larkin Rose on the question of intellectual property. So let me just lay the background of where I start I'm using by the way this new zoom Create clip feature because I've never figured out the technical way to do video commentary So I'm trying this it may be crude, but hopefully it'll be Sufficient So about a year ago Larkin Rose who is some some Libertarian writer or fallen tourist or anarchist I've met him at pork vests. I've never read his stuff. So I just think he's some libertarian activist type Writer and he to his credit Opposes intellectual property although I'm not sure his reasons make a lot of sense, but he seems to oppose intellectual property But he had some video like saying that yes if you pirate You know copyrighted content Then you know, there shouldn't be copyright laws.  You know, what about all the millions of people in Africa or Asia or the Middle East or South America? Don't we care about them? So I'm just saying from all I'm saying is, you know You could make an argument that that your your priorities are misplaced Especially we're just selling a tiny little no-name self-published book Which you're never believe I've published lots of books some have made lots of money for legal legal publications Some make very little money So I know I know that it's you know, these these these no-name libertarians who write these little Self-published tracks, they don't make any money off of it. They might make a little maybe a couple thousand bucks but So it's not like it's not like there's it's not like their main goal is to make money And if they do they're diluting this if they think that they're diluting themselves And even if they really are making money or think they want to make money off of it You know, if you put a free PDF of your book online It doesn't mean you can't keep making money selling the book like you're doing before lots of people will still buy it In fact, they could increase sales. So I Never said you don't have the right to put a paywall up. I never said you have a strong moral obligation I simply said that you know, if you're going to argue someone is a jerk for copying public information without any argument whatsoever Then you could easily argue that someone's a jerk for Not being a good libertarian by putting fake elusive profits over spreading the message. That's all So that could just be an opinion so Larkin went crazy when I said this he was shocked to start calling me a commie Which is not anyway Fast forward a year later, I think he's been working on some movie called Jones Plantation which Mine it looks just the trailer It might not be quite as bad as alongside night and the Atlas shrug movies. Who knows Anyway, he had a video about that and apparently here's here's what I think happened in his video. He's defending himself from basically paywalling the movie like charging people to see it and not making it free online and criticizing people that pirate it and upload it and things like that He's he's doing that in this video and I he doesn't name names except one party mentions me near the end But he's very elusive. He doesn't give specifics He's he's a little bit Miscreptive about the the the YouTube takedown process that he mentions To try to make it sound not as bad as it is So here's what I think happened. I think that The movie is done. They're going to have a premiere in a couple of weeks in Dallas and Some copies of leaked and some people are already leaking it on torrenting sites or something like that So you can get a copy of the movie apparently right now if you happen to want to watch it So so apparently Some people involved with the movie and Larkin was a writer. I think and maybe a bit actor in it So he has some involvement in it. There's probably some people with money behind it Must have cost something to make I don't know So apparently Well, he said he says and we'll get to this and that what I'm gonna play his video By the way, the video is about 35 minutes long. I don't know if we'll get to the whole thing It's a little tedious to watch because he repeats himself. He's a little confused And I'm not trying to pick on poor Larkin here He's actually to his credit He says he's against IP and he admirably sees that it can't Extend to third parties who are not in privity of contract or something like that. So he sees that to his credit But I want to use this video and to go through his comments to show to try to To to clarify some things because IP is a very difficult topic for people to understand And so people get confused about it all the time they get confused about the DMCA They get confused about section 230, which is not copyright related. They get confused about contract and the morals versus rights issue Self-ownership labor theory of value all these things But what I think happened was someone Associated with the movie maybe Larkin.  I'm a patent attorney. I've made my living over the years by applying for patents Which is a system.  I'm not gonna try to defend it Or here's my defense, you know, and I've done this in other videos But I try to be honest about it, you know Not try to change the nature of what it is now in my case What I've done has been always defensive Or neutral so Yeah, it's true my career wouldn't exist if I had my way and which is what I want but I can only do what I can do So if you're in a system where you're forced to use trademark law or the DMCA as part of your business model, okay But don't pretend that it's just Enforcing a contract. It's not that's what Larkin sort of implies later Okay, so I'm gonna get into his video. I'll stop it on occasion and hopefully this this my technological approach will work Well, so here we go I'm gonna press play and move my little window over here Dallas, Texas August 26th. That's two weeks from the day I'm posting this There will be a screening of the Jones plantation. Yeah, I will be there Amanda will be there Andrew the director will be there Guy who plays mr. Jones will be there. I think we're gonna have some other Surprise guests of other people who are in the movie. I think I'm not even sure who but I think a couple more are gonna be there So if you don't yet have tickets that want to see it on the big screen Check the description below For the length of how to get tickets August 26th Dallas, Texas. I Wanted to make a video that is kind of relevant to what's going on right now somebody copied the Jones plantation movie as we knew they would and Stuck it on Odyssey and someone else stuck it on YouTube and There were complaints and they took it down because to post it on those things you have to violate the conditions that you agreed to before posting there because both of those platforms and lots of platforms say if you If you're posting content somebody else made without their permission, that's the violation of their own policies And so that's that's that but it okay, so here's here's where he's already trying to spend it What and I need to explain some things here, so Here's the way it works There is copyright law in almost every country because of the burn convention including the United States and it Sensors free speech and it's totally unlibertarian and evil. Okay, and because the way the law works So when someone infringes copyright by publishing something That is someone else's copyrighted work without their permission They're potentially liable for criminal and civil damages. You can go to prison for this And not only is the Actual infringer the direct infringer potentially liable, but other people are potentially liable For your liability that's called secondary or vicarious liability or responsibility And so when the internet started there was a danger. There was a there was a fear that If you had this, you know with the emerging internet with the with the emergence of blogging and commenting that if you had an if you're an internet service provider called an ISP or a platform like let's say blogger or Later you YouTube or places like that and you let you let your users post Content like a comment or an article or a video or mute or an audio file or an image That if that was a copyright infringement then the person who uploaded it could be liable, but you could be Liable for what they did under secondary or vicarious liability for for for enabling it right or for helping it And the fear was that that would kill the internet because how could you have a Blog and allow people to comment if someone could post a copyright infringing Image or something in the comments and you didn't do you didn't you didn't ask them to do that But you have no control over it because you don't have the resources to monitor every post So Congress and there was a concern about that for defamation as well if you post something that's not mandatory and So Congress enacted in 1996. I believe The communications decency act Sorry, my dog is barking the CDA under which has the section 230 exemption for liability For defamatory contents of your users and then in two years later in 1998 Okay Shut the dogs up So the CDA was the defamation exemption in 1998 and these are all under Bill Clinton. I believe um A similar exemption was given to platforms and ISPs and providers For copyright infringement and they said you're not secondarily liable for the copyright infringing acts of your users if you follow these steps, which is you have to Immediately take down the content if you get a notice from someone pretending or purporting or Claiming to be the copyright holder And if you don't do that then you lose your exemption and you might be liable now YouTube So this has led to this takedown system Where YouTube takes down? I don't know. It's like a million a day It's crazy because you have all these robots from all these media companies Scouring videos that they detect a little thing They just send a notice and then YouTube takes it down because they don't they don't have the resources to investigate every one And if they make a mistake they lose their they lose their exemption and they could be liable for hundreds of millions of dollars because the Statutory damages are hundred and fifty thousand dollars per active infringement. I mean it's crazy. So And so that's why these companies have these policies. They have these policies just to avoid Being decimated by copyright law These are not free market policies. These are not just a term of service in a free market with no copyright It's unimaginable that these companies would have similar policies If YouTube had a policy that tried to mimic what copyright makes them do right now Then you would just have an Odyssey pop up or something or Odyssey number three pop up and they would say well We're not going to do that. You anyone can post anything. We don't care. And so if I try to post a video on YouTube That the the creator doesn't like and he complains to YouTube and YouTube takes it down because that's their Free market terms of service then I'm just going to go to Odyssey So so the YouTube's the ones that have restricted policies just wouldn't survive in a free market So these are not free market policies is my point So Larkin is trying to portray it that way. So but the reason he's doing that is because later on he acknowledges that IP is bullshit copyright is wrong Now but if you have a contract with someone not to reveal information, that's legitimate, which I agree with But he concedes that that doesn't bind third party So once the information gets out to the internet and gets becomes public like on a torrent site or whatever Let's say someone briefs their contract and they they leaked it which they shouldn't have done But once they do it the information is public now you have this massive third parties who have no obligation To they have no contract with the producer If they did they would be violating a contract, but they don't so that's why that's why piracy is not a Legal offense or a crime under libertarian theory and Larkin understands this But what he's trying to do is he's trying to say well when you upload a video to YouTube You're in breach of contract because you're breaching the agreement with YouTube their terms of service Now see this but this is just not the case. This is not what's going on. What's happening is that Larkin and his friends are using the power of copyright threats to Tell YouTube and Odyssey you cannot use your platform for this reason So another is a saying hey Odyssey unless you take this video down You could be you could be subject to a copyright infringement lawsuit because Because if you don't take this video down we might sue The user who put the video up and we might sue you for secondary liability because you're the host And you don't have the exemption under the DMCA anymore because you refuse to take it down So you see what's going on here. This is not just innocent This is not just Bad users who are violating an agreement with the content creator They might be breaching the terms of service with the host YouTube or Odyssey But those terms of service are there just as the defense against copyright which shouldn't exist. Anyway, let's go on It brings up the concept of intellectual property, which to me brings up a wider concept They don't believe in intellectual property, but people do this weird thing of They they come up with these ideas and these concepts and they forget what they're based on they forget what they came from So basically almost everything I talk about when they talk about political political philosophy it all stems from the idea of Self-ownership even that is kind of a weird thing and some people complain about well if I own myself Then I could sell myself and will you kind of can't He's talking here about the the voluntary slavery thing, which is which is Orthogonal to this so he's right to dismiss that but you'll see here. He gets he's a little bit confused like a lot of Like a lot of libertarians are He He seems to glimpse that self-ownership Means Ultimately just means a property right in your body. He never says it that way But he sort of seems to get that you'll see in a second, but He also then Hints that yeah, it means you also own what you create with your labor. Okay, this is the labor theory of Property of Locke, which is why most people believe in intellectual property because they make that mistaken view that they make They mistakenly believe that you own yourself Instead of your body, right? This is kind of holistic thing yourself and Therefore you own your your labor That that's the key mistake. I've talked about this. I'll have it this in the show notes But this is Locke's big mistake and it's confused everyone This why I'm a little surprised that Larkin is against IP Because he seems to believe that you own your labor and you own the fruits of your labor this metaphorical nonsense Which is why most people believe in IP? Only thing I can think is he's such a staunch anarchist and he hates the idea of state force that he senses that Even if you own your labor, you just can't justify State force used against someone for not stealing a physical thing I think it's something like that but to his credit he he seems to be against IP for whatever his reasons are But his concept of self-ownership is not quite precise enough Self-ownership really means every person is the owner of his body. That's all it means It does not mean that you own your labor It does not mean you own the fruits of your labor Now the reason for this latter point that this latter point is important and it is true Is because the only source of ownership? Well, first of all the only things that can be owned or scarce resources and by this we mean what I call conflictable material resources scarce means of action the types of things that are exclusively they can only be exclusively used and that the use of which implies that You know Someone's using it someone else cannot use it right so that means there's a potential for conflict over it So we need as human actors in the world to use scarce means which I call conflictable resources to achieve our ends and property rights are there to reduce or eliminate this conflict by allocating the The ownership or the control of a given resource to a particular owner, right? And then you could in principle avoid conflict. So all property rights are ownership rights in Tangible scarce material conflictable resources and They can only come from two sources number one is When there's a human actor who's already a self-owner, which means he's a body owner So you have this human body person person body walking around who owns his body and He's in a world with some things that are not yet appropriated or owned by anyone else Which means that no one else has a claim to the thing which means that if he starts using it as one of his pursuits Then he can claim ownership of it because no one else can claim That he violated their rights because they would have to be the owner of it already for them to Complain about him using the thing Okay, so once you have a property rights system ownership initially comes from original appropriation or what some people call homesteading So that's one source of ownership Homesteading an unowned scarce resource one number two is if you get it from a previous owner by contract that's it and A subsidiary would be if you get it from the owner because he owes you owes you Damages for committing a tort against you, but you can think of that as a subset of contract But anyway in both those cases you have in the first case you have someone Becoming the first owner by getting something that no one else had a claim to unowned resources second Yes, by the way, you have to use your intellect in your labor to do that But that's not because you you don't own it because you own your labor You don't own your labor labor is an action. You can't own actions actions are what you do with your body And and so You own it because you were the first one to establish an objective link between yourself and the thing And you can therefore have a claim that show you're the first user and you have a better claim than any latecomer That's the essence of property rights is that current owners have a better claim than someone who takes it from them Takes it from them later In second you can get it from a previous owner by their consent only if they can essentially agree to it Which could be a contract where I give you my car or I sell you my car or If I if I injure you Negligently, let's say and now I owe you some damages. So now some of my property becomes owned by you so I can Give you rectification or restitution. Okay, but basically the point is the only sources of ownership is Original appropriation of an unknown thing or contract. That's it It's not creation and it's not labor. It's not production Production is how we make wealth production just means transforming an existing thing that you already own so if I have some iron ore and I turn it into a Plow now I have increased my wealth because it's more useful to me or to my customers if I want to sell it But the only way I own the plow is if I own the iron ore that went into it if I'm on a factory working for Working for some plow company Then the the owners my employers are the ones that own the iron ore and they're the ones that own the output Which is what I created with my effort, but I'm paid in a salary, right? I'm a wage slave right according to the the left libertards You know I'm an employee but but the point is Creation is not a source of it's not a source of property rights because it's not necessary Again, if I find some iron ore in a field, I didn't create it, but I'm the owner because I'm the first and Again, if I make a plow Using someone else's iron ore under contract as an employee I'm not the owner of the plow so creation is not sufficient So creation has nothing to do with ownership creation is a source of wealth So we have to distinguish wealth from property rights All right. Anyway, let's go on and but by self-ownership I just mean ownership means the exclusive right to decide what is done with something and Self-ownership by that. I mean I get to decide what's done with this with my time and effort and my body and Notice see he's he's getting he's close to it. He's he's he's actually really good here on he's right that the right Property right means the he says exclusive right and technically it really means the right to exclude It just means the right to prevent Property rights don't give you the right to do something with a thing because if I own a gun I don't have the absolute right to do whatever I want with it. I can't point it into your yard and shoot at your house Right, just because I own it so it doesn't give me the right to use it It gives me the right to stop you from using it and this gives me the effective ability to use it in most cases right But he but notice he throws in time and effort and all this like no now we're getting metaphorical No, because he doesn't say the word body. He says this points to himself This vague thing about this kind of agglomeration of concepts myself, which is this loose thing is time is effort Maybe my mental creativity my labor my love my thoughts my hopes my dreams. I don't know I mean, that's why we need to be precise when we're talking about property and law I mean law or law or property rights that are legally enforceable notice the word forces in there forces a physical concept Right, you can only apply force the legal system of whatever community you're in whether it's private or government run Can only be applied to a tangible physical object because that's how physics works forces applied to physical things Right So that's why in the end all property rights are about physical things and who gets it So that's what self-ownership really has to mean because One criticism of the idea of self-ownership by very confused new age hippie California types is who how can you own something? How can you be a self-owner if you are yourself? It's like a contradiction man. Look whenever someone starts talking that kind of bullshit I hold on to my fucking wallet because they're coming for it, you know ultimately The alternative to self-ownership is slavery, but what we mean by self-ownership is we have this we have this This humanistic concept of the person the personality the actor in human action terms And that Identifiable person is the one that has the property right in that body that's connected to that person So you don't have to get into mysticism and All that kind of stuff you just have to have to have a console So you don't have to be religious for example to believe that there's a distinction between the self and the body Any more than that you're a mystic if you think there's a difference between the brain and the mind I mean my brain has a weight and a size and an age My mind has no weight A dead body has a brain, but it has no mind, you know, I can change my mind, but I can't change my brain You know, I mean concepts are different some are abstract and some are concrete and This is applied to different things and it doesn't mean there's not a relationship between them Okay, but the point is we want to talk about property rights and Justice and law which is what these things are about. We're always talking about physical force So then we're always talking about who is the owner of any contestable physical resource Including your body.  Right who can touch your body who can invade your body. I can consent to a surgeon cutting my body open But if a mugger cuts my body open He's a trespasser, right? Because I didn't consent to that So that's what self ownership means. It means there's a person identifiable associated with a human corporeal body Which corpus means body? Who can decide who gets to use it? So Larkin is basically right, but he's wrong in going into all this metaphorical stuff about time and labor I'm gonna back out for a second. And everything else what's something and self ownership by that I mean I get to decide what's done with this With my time and effort and my body and and everything else and nobody else has the right to you know violate my consent and So what I produce with my time and energy is mine and I can trade it with others and so on and so forth Pretty basic concept. That's that the foundation of individualism is that the individual Has the right to control himself or owns himself for a shorthand So when people come up with something like rights for example Like I have a right to do this and then other people say, you know, there's those are things rights They're just made up things. Well, yeah, kind of but no The only way in which the concept of a right means anything is a statement of a negative I've explained this before to say I have the right to say what I want Only means it's morally wrong for somebody else to forcibly stop me from being able to say what I want the right Okay, he's actually good here. Well, not completely, but he's he's he's right about Rights being essentially negative. So when I have a right it or in law, we would say that it's correlative to a duty, right? So it just it just when I claim a right It means it's specifying what other people have no right to do now. I think he's wrong is saying morally wrong that's a little bit imprecise because Political philosophy and libertarian theory is not a moral philosophy. It's not about being morally wrong I'm gonna let that pass because that's not too much of an error, but it's not quite precisely, right For example, people say the non-aggression principle means that it's we libertarians believe it's morally wrong to commit aggression I don't think that's actually right. It's a little bit in the weeds But I think the the view of say Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Denial is more correct in their liberty nature and other books Thinks the perfectionist turn Where they say that the right way to view what rights are is there they're not norms in other words norms are Moral rules and moral norms are things that guide human action on a daily basis. That's what morality is for rights or Meta norms that is they guide us into Deciding which laws are justified. That's what they're for So when we say aggression the non-aggression principle really doesn't say that aggression is immoral what it says is that that No law that commits aggression is justified, right or the other way around any law that aims to counter aggression is justified That's what it means So for this is this is too far field, so I'm gonna let that go for now, but But um Yeah, let's keep going right to be armed all that means is it's morally wrong for somebody to forcibly disarm you for no good reason Yeah, it's a thing morally wrong. I would say that that Anyone who uses force to take my gun away is violating my rights or Any law that stops you from doing it is an unjust law. That's that's how I would say instead of calling it morally wrong But that's a little detail Um But these concepts come along and then when for example people talk about rights They talk about them as if there's like this pile of rights you have that and if you keep in mind Where the concept came from and the logic that led to it. It makes a lot more sense Otherwise you start clinging to ideas that when you forget where it came from the ideas take on a life of their own But then when they don't make sense people cling to them anyway An example I could use is like the concept of gravity is Like well gravity says things go down Well, no actually gravity says that everything with mass protons and new I Already listened to this one time. So I think so I think his gravity example is not horrible But it's just not it's not applicable. I mean, he's not bad. He's not completely wrong about gravity But he's just I think he's wrong or where he's heading with this he's he's trying to find an out for himself to To defend himself from from criticism from anti IP libertarians who see that it is wrong To use copyright to censor speech.  We're not claiming that and because he doesn't name anyone by name He can he can then straw man things because he you can't pin him down as to what examples he's got in mind so he can make these These false accusations against straw man who are not even saying what he's claiming that they say right Again like me in our earlier talk and then in later in this talk when he gets to me He claims that I'm a commie because I claim that you Or have an up some kind of some kind of legal obligation to To not have paywalls. That's not my view at all. I never said that it's not implied by anything that I said, right? Let's go on your trons and every other thing basically every combination of two things with mass has a pull between them that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them and and you can have the whole equation of GM 1 m2 over r squared or d squared depending on which one you're doing That's the actual concept of gravity that's measurable and repeatable But if somebody just says oh, the things go down that's gravity and then you show them a helium balloon and it goes up Oh my god There isn't gravity because the helium balloon just went up No, actually it goes up because of gravity But you have to understand things like density and the the the mass of air versus the mass of helium the whole reason It goes up is because helium has a lower mass That room temperature then air So the air is actually falling down and pushing it up the same way a bubble goes up in a pool So anyway, the point is if you oversimplify a concept and you think the rule of gravity is that things go down And then you find something that doesn't fit that If you don't know where that the concept of the idea came from then you just got But if you watch where it came from it makes perfect sense So how does this tie into the concept of intellectual property? Well intellectual property isn't exactly a thing But a lot of people think in terms of is it property or not and nothing Okay, it's not that it's not a thing. I know this is this is Extemporaneous comments by him Intellectual property law is it is a thing it exists What we mean is intellectual property laws are not just that means they're not compatible with libertarian Law or libertarian rights. That's what that's what we mean. We say it's not a thing thing else and they people think in terms of is it property or not and nothing else and they forget where all of the concepts came from and This is another little mistake. It's not in the criticism of it. Oh, this is not his fault Everyone makes a mistake the criticism of intellectual property is not that it's not property I mean the word property To be precise should be reserved for the for the for the reference to the relationship between an own a human actor owner and an ownable thing a resource So I have a property right in a thing. The thing is not property Property is the relationship between me and the thing but we get sloppy and we call things property like we'll say Like we'll say that like that gun is that gun is my property The reason that that that that that that casual colloquial usage arose I believe is because the reason we employ these scarce means is to extend our reach into the world to To use the causal laws that we're aware of to achieve our ends and over time the things that we use Like our clothing our food our homes our tools our weapons They become a property of ourselves Like a feature of ourselves a characteristic of ourselves because they extend our our ability to reach into the world to do things That's all so we start calling like yeah Like that gun is a property of cancella because it describes what cancella can do right like cancella has many properties He's five foot seven. He's he's he's American. He's born in this year. Whatever. That's what that's my properties My has a certain weight a Certain educational background Whatever right a certain set of and one of my properties is I can I can shoot I can shoot that rabbit Because I have a gun right so we start calling the gun my property And then and there's nothing wrong with that if you're if you're aware of the reason for this casual shift in language But technically speaking if you better to say Stepping cancella has a property right or an ownership right in that gun or Stepping cancella owns that gun Instead of calling the gun my property because then people start saying well the problem with intellectual property is ideas aren't property. It's like well It's not that they're not property and plus the word property is in there because that's what the pro Socialists, you know the pro IP types have done they've turned these Terms like patent trademark and copyright and trade secret which are all distinct bodies of law and Patent and copyright used to be called intellectual privileges or intellectual monopolies or monopolies They they started using the term intellectual property to describe all of them But that was just a propaganda move to to overcome opposition and hostility to patent and copyright in 1800s by the free market economists who recognized that this was crazy that we the government's granting these monopoly privilege grants For for writings and for novels and for inventions right so they started opposing it and The the industries that had become entrenched in this and the people that had been confused by the Lockean labor theory of property and Utilitarianism and Technocracy all started defending the existing patent and copyright system by saying that they're really Natural property rights, but they're a special type called intellectual property And now you have people that senses something wrong and they want to defend it They want to oppose IP rights and they say well, it's not real property But that's not really the argument But that's what you don't understand if you don't have a deep understanding of IP which no one does because it's so arcane No one understands any trust law administrative law Indian affairs law Even con law to be honest It's so arcane and crazy and not it's not law none of its real law.  All right. Let's go so for example if I Write a song and it's out there and somebody copies it and then they have a copy of the song I didn't lose anything. I still have my song So it's not the same as if I own a car and somebody takes my car. They have my car. I don't have my car. They stole it Ding ding ding ding point one for Larkin really good. You're correct here So ideas and information don't function the same way as property. So yeah intellectual property isn't that's correct I have some posts and it's in my my upcoming book where I talk about this If you think about human action in practical logical terms like Mises would do or Hapa All human action is the is the effort by a human actor that is a Sapient being you know having some control over a corpus a body and some interaction with the world and some awareness of what's going on and some awareness of the future that's coming and some dissatisfaction with the future that he thinks is coming and some knowledge of causal laws and his available resources and So what he does is he he identifies an end that is a future thing He wants to change like he thinks that oh he detects that he's hungry because he senses that from his stomach and He he extrapolates with his rational ability and his knowledge his empirical knowledge that if I don't do something about this in In a few hours or a couple days. I'm going to be dead or I'm going to be really hungry And so he wants to change that so he sees a future world coming with him being hungry or dead And he doesn't like that it gives him uneasiness as milk means is called it felt uneasiness So he thinks well, I'm aware that if I feed myself I can alleviate this and I'm aware that one way to do that is to make a Fishing net and go down to that river and catch a fish and eat the fish So he employs Means to do it, but you notice that the two components of that action that are critical but distinct is Number one the availability of Some scarce means that is means that can help him achieve his goal like there's fish And there's a there's material to make a net And his knowledge he has to be have knowledge of the cause of his hunger and the solution to it and how to How to achieve that like he knows he can grab a stick and grab some Some some fiber of some leaves and make fibers or whatever make a net He can he can go he could use his body to walk to the river and catch a fish and eat it so you have to have both knowledge and Scarce means which he can walk in here calls property. I would call it scarce resources Because this this could apply to Crusoe on a desert island where there's no property rights It's just scarce resources. So we're always talking about scarce or conflictable means of action or resources So but they're not enough you have to have knowledge Right. So knowledge guides action Action employs means so those two things are both essential and critical for any successful action. He's not wrong here I'm just clarifying thing and you can you can do all sorts of examples like if I if I Learn about some clever way to like if I tell someone a trick for how to drive on in ice and snow And they're not used to it and they go, oh, okay. Thanks. Let's say yeah But you have to pay me a dollar every time you do it It's like what no like I have the idea in my own head now you explained it to me now I understand it you don't get to charge me for something I know just because it came from you that's ridiculous and he's right here He's a hundred percent right here, but this applies to piracy as well. What if if you make a movie like Larkin and his buddies did and If you don't keep it under wraps enough that it's going to leak which he admits It's going to leak and it's going to leak because he wants to show it He doesn't want to keep it secret for five friends to look at he wants to show it to make money or to get publicity or whatever Which I totally understand, but the risk of that is it's going to leak because it's impossible to keep information Chained down it's just impossible And by the way these contracts he's talking about I don't think he's going to make people going into the movie have a contract I Don't think that when he anyone uploading the movie He didn't have a contract with any of those and if you tried to make them sign a contract They would say fuck you right. I'll wait for it to be pirated and I'll get it that way I'm not going to sign a goddamn contract. Anyway So he's right that it would be ridiculous for me to say well you have information about how to Drive better on ice or whatever and now you have to pay me I know a dollar look, but the problem is like why would it be a dollar? Why not a million dollars? Why not a penny? I mean the numbers are arbitrary. I think we get used to the typical fees charged in the copyright system For you know for Amazon to rent you a movie for a day, which is like three or five bucks So is that supposed to be a fair market value for? Using an idea why would it be a dollar, but this is the point in other comments I think it's in this video or maybe the others, you know, they have this idea that Well, oh, I was actually wrong earlier. It wasn't about his book is about the anarchist. It was about the anarchist the HBO show The anarchist are the earlier Poophead thing was about Libertarians copying the anarchist HBO video pirating that so he was like why not just throw a couple of dollars to HBO Which I guess means they're $20 a month Subscription fee and I'm like, well, why would it be $20? Why why do I need to throw a couple of dollars to a copyright horror? Corporation which the lefty you lefty don't even like anyway.  Well, that's nothing more than asking for charity That's like saying well, I have this new think tank and I'm starting it And the only way I'm gonna succeed is if people donate money to me, okay? So everyone has an obligation to support me. It's like really? How much? Why you there's a million charities in the world Okay, it's not bad if I can support you, but if I don't support you, I've done nothing wrong I'm not a jerk if I don't support you or If I free ride, there's nothing wrong with free riding Everything we do in society other people benefit from without paying for it. No big deal.  So that that's an example of that's not my property. That idea isn't I'm not the only one who has the right to use that idea Yes, he's correct. And once your movie gets out on the torrents, you're not the one who has the right to tell anyone What to do with it? I Mean as Benjamin Tucker said as Wendy McElroy points out if you want to keep your idea to yourself keep it to yourself Information is something that can spread. It can be copied. That's its nature People can learn from it. They can build on it. They can discard it. They can consume it that you know, they can change it and That's the nature of information and knowledge and there's nothing wrong with that by the way if you decide to let your information become public then You can't really complain when people use it Because it's not yours because information cannot be owned as in your lingo. It's not property But what I would say is you know, the the only things that are the subject of property rights or scarce resources Conflictable resources and they can be owned only by original appropriation or by contract That leaves no room for ownership of ideas because ideas don't exist in the world They're just patterns of information embedded on a substrate or a carrier like your brain or a Magnetic tape or an LP or a physical paper book with ink patterns on it or a CD CD ROM with pits and lens that reflect light in different ways right or computer memory chips with transistors that That that store ones and zeros All these things are physical things that are substrates that are real physical scarce objects in the world that someone owns And they own the thing but they don't own the way it's arranged Right, they don't own the properties of things or the characteristics of things if I own a red Porsche I Own that particular red Porsche. I don't own red That's a character or feature or a property of my car. I don't own its 3000 pound weight. I Don't own its horsepower. I don't own its age Right, I don't own its mass. I own that particular car So we've got to stop thinking that we own properties of things if I own my body I don't own what it does. I don't own labor labor is an action to say I own an action is nonsensical If I own my body I can go take a jog with it Doesn't mean I own jogging if I own a red car doesn't mean I own red if I owned red it'd be a universal Meaning I own everything red in the world That's crazy Which means I would be stealing the property that someone else has a red bicycle now I own their bicycle But I thought they own their bicycle You know why because the only source of property rights is original appropriation or contract and just because I have a red car Doesn't mean I appropriated that bicycle or are created it from raw materials or bought it from anyone by a contract I just happen to have something similar Same thing is true with and this is why information cannot be owned because information is always the impatterning of a substrate Which is owned So no one can ever own information or it's Larkin might say it's not property I would say it's just not the type of existent thing to which property rights can apply It can't be a subject of property rights Let's go on so I you know that's kind of obvious and that's why people say intellectual property isn't a thing But if you forget where well, we don't say it's not a thing We say it's unjust, but okay came from you start to argue stupid stuff for example If Let's just make up a hypothetical Let's say I and some people I know made a movie You might be able to imagine that We're not obligated to give it to anybody. No, you're not and no one says you are so this is the straw man I don't say you're obligated to especially for a movie for for a book, you know for a little 90 page self-published of badly edited of screed You're not going to make it any more than that anyway, right? So that's why I was saying you could make an argument that If you want people to understand what you think are important ideas of liberty Why wouldn't you open why wouldn't at least a year later? You put it free online and PD. Why wouldn't you make it easy for people in Africa to You know or poor or poor students somewhere to find it. Why I mean, I really don't understand it I wouldn't be a libertarian if I didn't believe in this because believe me. I don't get money for this stuff This is a hobby which I support with my other career And I'm happy to do it. I donate money to other libertarian causes So why would you why would you spend all your time writing a book and try to keep it? Pay walled where only Rich westerners can see it. It makes it just makes no sense to me Doesn't mean you have obligation, but it means like well, you're then your goal is not really to spread liberty is it? Now for a movie like this where it takes a big cost to hire actors and to get production The only way it's feasible is if you somehow either fund it with your own money or you Sell tickets or you get donors Um, so your so your goal there is not completely message-based partly is to to To make money, which there's nothing wrong with making money or having a profit motive But you could only do it as a libertarian in a just way, right? So you shouldn't be using dmca takedowns number one. That's the problem, right? Having a paywall is not the problem So this is the subtle sort of shift here. Know what it's saying. You have an obligation to Release it for free to the world tomorrow Right now I personally think that in a couple of years when the tail has died out on this thing and it's not selling anything Maybe make it free then Of course, you don't need to because the magic of information is that it can be copied and pirated And it's going to be available. Anyway, if anyone really wants to see this movie. I don't know um Let's go on unless somebody actually like made a deal ahead of time Like if people donated with the agreement they get the copy then they get a copy like But if if we just make something We don't have any obligation to give it to anyone like we created it when we have control over it Nobody's entitled to it He's correct. No one's entitled to it. But if you Make it public enough Or you distribute it to enough people that it will be leaked And you know this And then there's a leaked copy on the internet Then someone who can access that has no obligation not to copy it either Larkin It's the same thing is like oh, I'm just playing the piano in my You know My house. I'm just sitting here playing the keyboard or something Well, that's not your property. So we have a right to hear it It's not the same thing You can close your drapes because you have the right to control your drapes That's how you can stop people from from hearing you play Or you don't keep your keep your doors locked But to stop people from copying Your movie on odyssey you have to send a dmca copyright takedown notice. That's a difference One means as legitimate one's not for right to barge in now. You don't have a right to barge in I don't have any obligation to ever play it for anybody or let anybody hear it I have the right to keep everybody out And if I record it, I don't have an obligation to give it to anybody No, you don't but if you release that recording to enough people where it's likely it will be leaked by one of them In violation of a contract maybe or a confidentiality agreement or an obligation Then you have you have you have enabled It to be released to the public and you can't complain about that once it gets out You can complain about the people who violated your trust But you can't complain about third parties using public information Which you already agreed to this you've already said that there's no contract with The third party by the way I'm at My current I'm at almost an hour now, and I'm only eight minutes into his 35 minute video What I'm going to do is I'm going to stop And then I'm going to do a part two maybe a part three I think it'll go faster as we go further along. I'll just let his talk go on and on Because I think I've kind of covered most of his the things he says that I think are confused So I'm going to stop here with part one And part two will start in the next episode


It rubs off me a lot, you know. It's crazy, I used to watch this game way back since Florida, New York.  So whatever I could take from his game, he's given us a lot of pointers as young guys, you know, what we can watch for, you know, just as a whole, you know, just expanding our, our view of the game, you know. So he's been a big help for us as a secondary. I feel, I feel really great about this offseason, you know, without just having to come in for OTA's, I feel like that was a big help for me. Which would have been an even better help for us last year, you know, but we couldn't have that. But it's been good for us, you know, just getting those reps in, you know, going against, going against those guys instead of just talking through it and walking through it, it's good to, you know, get the reps on the field. Yeah, yeah, yeah, definitely. Like I said, that was my main thing, you know, just finding one thing that I could work on each day, you know, that could put me in a better position to make a play. And another thing is just not forcing it, you know. I gotta make the plays that come to me, you know, within the scheme, within the defense. Christian, are racies, are racies a guy who goes? Yeah. Have you seen from him how he's made it? Yeah.   You know, a lot of people know him like kind of the special teams guy. And I think he's taking those tips, you know, and applying that to his game.  Yeah, really main thing, you know, just get healthier as soon as you can.  So really just take your time off the field getting ready. And really just stand at playbook and take the mental reps he's at practice now so he can take, you know, mental reps on the sideline and like just go through the calls, you know, those are little things, you know, that can help speed the game up for him. You know, it's kind of fast out there. Yeah. Honestly, like, as soon as we left, well, finished with the Baltimore game last year, I mean, I kind of knew what my role would be coming into next year, you know. It didn't feel too good, you know, standing on the sideline. So I knew I wanted to push myself, you know, to compete for a starting job. And that's how I took this off-season by approach. And you kind of just let the cards fall into place. You know, I didn't really know they were going to get released or nothing like that. But, you know, just preparing myself to come out and compete with those vets, you know.  I want to say it's pressure, you know. It's just, well, no, outside pressure, you know. Obviously, you know, I put pressure on myself because, you know, I respond well to pressure. And it's just going to help me in the long run, you know. Making it harder for me out here will make it easy for me in the game. So it's definitely pressure, you know, as far as, like, not giving them no catches, you know. That's how I allow myself to think, you know. So I have that mindset when I'm on the field as a con. Yeah, yeah. Just letting go of, you know, what I did wrong the day before and, like I said, taking one thing, whatever that may be and focusing on the next day and not having the same mistakes, you know, as a corner, you know, that kind of gets you beaten, you know, put on the bench. So, you know, it's kind of eliminating those things for me. That's the more the consistency part for me. Just, you know, fixing the things that I gave up the previous day.


next unit will be on basics of image processing which is very important in fact this the unit 5th will be basics of image processing 1 and 6th will be image processing 2 this is very important where nowadays we do major input to your GIS analysis under gene informatics is remote sensing data or image what do you mean by image basically satellite image exactly because satellite images are very frequent very I mean time to time ever 10 days 50 days 20 days we are getting those satellite data are the major input to your GIS that's why the image processing is very important so under this image processing one should know what is this image how to read the image what components we have what is which color indicating what which pattern indicating what which texture indicating what that we should know like if you wish to read the English we should know ABCD first without knowing alphabets we cannot read English the similar way if you want to read the satellite image we should know first what is what indicating how to read the satellite image we should know under this image processing so there are two kinds of image processing the one is the manually you can interpret the satellite image second one is digital image interpretation probably we have the second unit digital image interpretation where system there are softwares put your input as a satellite image system calculates everything then it will give by in your area this much land under agriculture this much land under water body this much land under fellow this much land under settlement that thematically quantified by the system in digital image processing the software will do but just you should do in there are two techniques again one technique is you have to guide what is what second technique is no I don't know anything the entire image please classify into five classes based on your pixels I think you know no image will be made with the pixels pixel means very good pixel means picture elementary this is the raster data your satellite data like your photograph software photograph or your TV right all is the raster form which made with the pixels right this is the pixel pixel means picture element picture bantai pixel side right picture element right based on the size of the pixel we know that we call spatial resolution spatial resolution means how the size of the pixel is in your satellite image if the pixel size is small then clarity will be high go to home and see your TV closely there is a grid form which called raster format right the satellite image also comes in the raster format so your image processing the digital image processing specifically based on this pixels only if it is agricultural land is also agricultural land this will have same pixel value if it is water body it will have same pixel value this pixel having value by default it may come zero zero then it will be calculated with your own GIS when you want to convert as a GIS map for taking latitude longitude no no I don't want that I want only this pixel values where I have the different types of land use patron land cover patron means agriculture fellow and all then you see the pixel value what are all having similar pixel value that will be generated by the system by this is agricultural land this is fellow land this is water body XYZ based on the pixel values in raster format so we will see what are all having on the basics of image processing in the unit tree


Climate change denial in the United States is almost entirely motivated by politics. A lot of scientists have thought that it was a problem of science illiteracy, that it was a problem of public understanding, that if we just explained the science better that then we would solve this problem. And that doesn't work because the problem is not being driven by lack of access to information, although that may play a role in some cases. The problem is being driven by people not wanting to believe the science because they don't like its implications. When it comes to the drivers of belief or acceptance of scientific findings, in particular climate change, then what we find is that one of the most important factors is a person's worldview, or you can call it a political ideology, their belief in things such as the free market. And it turns out that in particular, in the case of climate change, that people who are very enthusiastic about free markets and who think that government should not interfere with free markets, that they tend to reject the findings from climate change, climate science, based on that ideology. And it's a very strong effect. It's a huge effect. If you take climate science seriously, it means we need to do something. We need to do something that changes the way we operate. And that something could be very personal, could be changing the way you live, could be becoming a vegetarian or not traveling or building a zero energy home. But it also could be something that the government does. And a lot of the early attention about climate change particularly focused on governance. They focused on either the idea of international governance in the form of, say the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or focused on national governance in the form of a carbon tax or an emission trading system. So these are government interventions in the marketplace. In the case of climate change, where it's more of a political ideology and or an economic ideology, the concerns are more along the lines of, well, if climate change is true, that means that we're going to have to strengthen central government because we're going to have to take steps to curb the carbon production so that we can reduce the amount of CO2 in the air. That means a bigger central government. As political conservatives, we don't want a big central government. It means we're going to have to put some constraints on capitalism, that socialism. So there's a lot of things that political conservatives are going to lose also if climate change is right. So if you don't like the idea of a government intervention in the marketplace because you believe in free market economics, or you just worry about government encroachment, you worry about expanding government, then the kinds of solutions that are being put forward for climate change are things you don't like. And so that's a major, probably the single major reason why the Americans who reject climate science do it. Because if you look at the data on it, what you see is that the strongest correlation between climate change denial is with a certain kind of conservative politics that emphasizes the free market. It's not correlated with race, it's not correlated with age or gender or even religious belief with one exception that's tied to conservative politics, right, which is a certain sector of the evangelical community, but it's tied to a set of conservative beliefs about governance. The main reason why people don't think climate change is real is not because of lack of facts. Most of the people that I meet from day to day, the lady in the grocery store or the man across the street, they have arguments at the tip of their fingers as to why they don't think climate change is real.  They have arguments, factual or semi-factual based arguments about why it's not true. So why is everybody so convinced? It's because we are all cognitive misers. We don't have the brain power to understand every single issue in the world. I don't know if we ever did, but especially now, I mean, I don't understand the fundamentals of stem cell research. I don't really understand the pluses and negatives of nuclear power to be perfectly honest. I certainly don't understand the economic benefits and trade-offs of all the various climate policies that are being considered. And so you can understand how the average person doesn't understand the climate science. So what do we do? We go to people we trust. And in the United States, when we look at people we trust, if you look at the conservative half of the country, with one voice, conservative media, conservative thought leaders and conservative politicians are telling us that this isn't a real problem. In the literature, there are some accounts that I consider to be top-down in explaining opposition to things like clean air and clean water. That is, there are political elites. There are ideological think tanks. There are large donors. There are media networks that are arguing from the top and telling people that these are the arguments, these are the positions. Here are some scientific sounding rationale or an economic sounding rationale. That all being top-down. Then bottom up, I think there are people who are more or less inclined to listen to those arguments and to credit them or to discredit the alternatives. And some of that may be psychological. Some of it may have to do with your social position. We see all kinds of differences in terms of gender and education and age, but dominated by differences in ideology, worldview, or political party. It's frustrating, right? Because there shouldn't be a serious role for politics in climate science in my opinion. The science is science. And it was, right? The first time I ever testified to a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate was 12 years ago. And it was chaired by a Republican who was about to introduce a bill that was going to put a price on changing the climate through carbon emissions. And I personally think that he was just a little bit unhappy with me because I was not scarier about the threats. I was being very careful and measured. And this is that long ago. And so the idea that somehow your politics that you're on this side or that side means that you do or don't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, there is a little bit of that now, but it's a very, very recent thing. And it's the thing that I think that I hope can disappear again. You have to explain to the majority of people why there is a small but vocal minority that is denying the science. So I think it's very important for the public to understand that those people are motivated by factors such as personal ideology. I mean, if I have one message, that's what my message has been all long. And it still is, this is not a scientific debate. It's a political debate. But it's a political debate being made to look like a scientific debate.


Here is the Tuesday, the 5th of July edition. I hope everyone had a good weekend and we are looking at the Dow down 690 at 30,406. That was a very nice close on Friday but we haven't followed through. So we are following through to the downside as the 9-period moving average is still underneath the 14-period moving average. I had a very high Tringage reading which says that at some point there should be at least a 9-to-11 point E-mini rally to help the market. It has done that a few times today, it hasn't done very much yet. Looking at the S&P, the S&P is at 37,48 down 77. That is going to be really important because if we start to go under the 37,37 level, that just says you've got a potential, a second H pattern, arch formation I should say. And we are looking at that, a scan says should be showing some kind of support and buying power coming into the afternoon edition of the day. We are looking at the QQQ, not too bad, down 260 at 279,38. Here are a couple of the very oversold Nasdaq-type stocks that are running here. We are looking at the IWM which is acting very poorly. It's down 320 at 168. Now gold, gold has gone even lower. It's down 32 at 1768. The dollar which is acting extremely well is at 106.54. Nice break, I think it's like a 17 or 19-year breakout to the upside, up a dollar 36. That is very, very strong because the euro is down sharply and the bonds are trying their best to rally here. They're up 93 cents at 116.75. So you've got yields coming down. You've got commodities coming down. You've got so many factors that should be helping the market. They're not helping the market right now. So with that, I'm going to hand you over to Larry Pizavento. I believe he's back. We are really looking forward to that. And great program here. You've got Larry, you've got Thinkorswim. You've got Steve Rhodes, Dave White, Tom O'Brien. I'll be back with Tom a little later on this afternoon. So have yourself a wonderful day. Check out my opening call and don't forget, as my news said, and don't forget there's a fantastic sale going on right now. Huge discount on what you can buy. You can just have these tiger dollars sitting there. When you like someone's work, you can say, hey, I want to try them out. And even there, you get a money-back guarantee. So with that, I believe we're about to end this little session. There it is. So have a great day. I will see you tomorrow or a little later with Tom. And stay tuned for Larry Pizavento. We are welcoming back. Thank you.


The biggest success case for Ripple that I could imagine would be for us to be completely unnecessary. David Schwartz is the CTO of Payment Protocol and Exchange Network, Ripple. In December 2020, the SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple. The lawsuit alleges Ripple raised $1.3 billion by selling XRP in ongoing unregistered securities offerings. This is not Ripple's first run in with U.S. regulators. In 2015, the company reached a settlement with FinCEN for $450,000. Ripple was fined for selling XRP as an unregistered virtual currency and not adhering to anti-money laundry requirements. The lack of unified regulatory clarity in the U.S. has left Schwartz frustrated. I would love to be able to go to regulators and say, this is the principle that you should enact until. This is what's good and this is what's bad. Of course, I would hope that XRP would fall on the good side. Otherwise, I wouldn't be happy advocating that standard. With all that is happening, there are even rumors that Ripple may move their headquarters overseas. In this interview, Schwartz explores the future of payments, hypothesizes the usefulness of NFTs, and discusses whether exchanges will relist XRP. Cointelegraph writer Turner Wright brings you another exclusive Cointelegraph interview. Let's just jump right into it. Both Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larson have implied that they see the future of the company maybe outside the U.S. or at least opening a different branch. I know they're expanding into Asia. They've expanded to different markets. How would you personally be affected if they were to relocate their headquarters from the Bay Area to Japan? I wouldn't necessarily have to go there just because the company relocated their headquarters. You could imagine one scenario where just certain Ripple-owned entities become based in Japan, let's say, but the physical headquarters is still in San Francisco where it is now. Or you could imagine those operations shifting overseas. All of that is kind of influx right now. We are a U.S. company. We would like to be able to stay in the United States, but it is true that right now most of our businesses overseas. It's not entirely because of the regulatory environment. It's because a lot of those markets are just exploding. They're just fantastic markets to be in. If you're in a remittance business, the outputs aren't in the United States. That's just not where remittances go. Honestly, I don't know. It's still influx right now. We're keeping options on the table. My hope is that the regulatory environment in the United States improves. We can just stay here. We're a U.S. company. We want to be a U.S. company. The biggest problem with the United States from a regulatory compliance standpoint is that it is not one jurisdiction. You have 50 states and even at the federal level, you have a number of distinct regulators. You have FinCEN. You have the SEC. You have the CFTC. You have all these distinct regulators with overlapping areas of jurisdiction. It's just very difficult to please them all. I'm hoping that the United States can maintain a competitive environment. I will say one more thing, which is I go to the Internet a lot as an analogy. The United States embraced the Internet early. As a result, I think that's one of the reasons that the biggest companies in the world like Amazon and Microsoft, they're Internet companies. They're in the United States at least in part because the United States embraced the Internet. You could imagine a sort of alternative world where the United States said people are using the Internet to trade child pornography. They're using the Internet to radicalize terrorists. They're using the Internet to steal secrets from government computers or break into private companies and like sneak them across countries. We're not going to allow the Internet to flourish in the United States. At some point, the United States would have faced a take it or leave it choice. I don't think those companies would have been, I don't think Google would have been a U.S. company in that world. I also don't think that the Internet would reflect American values the way it does. I don't think people realize that early proposals for the Internet included things like mandatory tracking of oral information comes from and goes to.  We got an Internet that's very open because of that. Countries are forced to accept it because what are you going to do?  You could imagine a scenario where the United States chokes off this development from the United States and faces that take it or leave it situation in a world where those systems don't reflect the values that we have and don't contribute to our economy. I think there's an opportunity here and I think regulators need to do something about it. Do you think Ripple has been treated unfairly by regulators in the U.S.? I mean, even state-by-state or on a federal level? Unfortunately, right now, I'm sure you know there's SEC litigation pending, so it's difficult for me to comment on this, but I will say one thing that I've heard from people that I've spoken to. I speak to a lot of people in the industry who want to build things on the XRP ledger and on other platforms, and I constantly hear them saying that they don't want to build in the United States, and it's not because the laws are bad. That's not the reason. It's not like this law is bad and it needs to be changed. The problem is it's very difficult to figure out which laws apply and how they apply to something new. And that's true in a lot of places in the world, and there's always the risk that if you do something new anywhere, the regulators will say you need to stop because we don't have the regulations in place to handle this. And to be fair, like there are legitimate threats, the ICO craze. There were a lot of scams and regulators were not prepared to handle it, and it makes sense for them to say like this needs to stop until we can figure out how to protect consumers from being harmed. That makes a lot of sense, but one thing that I think is unique to the United States, well, two things. One of them are these weird overlapping regimes where it's a currency in some situations, and maybe it's a security in some situations, and maybe it's neither or both. And so the CFTC is going to say, well, we're going to regulate the exchanges, but the SEC says we're going to regulate issuers, and there's this mess of what is it and who's regulating it. Like that you generally don't see. Generally in other countries, there's some entity that makes the rules, and at least you know that you're talking to the right party. Ripple worked out a settlement with FinCEN. Will we talking to the right regulator then? Now it looks like maybe we weren't talking to the right regulator. And FinCEN described it as a digital currency and so on. And the other one is that the United States is one of the few countries where there's this very palpable risk that the regulators will turn to you and say that thing that you were doing for five years in public in complete light of day, well, you should have known it was illegal all along. That generally speaking doesn't happen in other countries. At least from people I've spoken to, they don't have that kind of fear that that will happen. And I was saying this long before the SEC action against Ripple and even before any of the SEC actions because like we have these huge legal opinions and one of the things they'll say is like there's a risk that like we don't think that this regulation applies, but there's a risk that the United States, that some regulator in the United States, we can't even tell you which one, so you don't even know who to ask, will tell you that you've been violating this regulation, that you obviously are violating this regulation and should have known it all.  That's like, well, how do you get to Kafka-esque situation? And that from what I understand, that generally doesn't happen in other countries. That seems to be a rare exception in most other countries and people are very afraid of that in the United States. And one thing that I hope does not happen that I worry about is I've seen proposals among United States regulators that essentially slam the door shut on new projects. What they say is like, yeah, well, grandfather and all these digital assets that have been around for a long time because we don't want to hurt the people who hold them and like, it's hard to say that like, oh, you've been doing this for so many years and it's suddenly bad, but we'll create very onerous burdens for new projects. And the problem with that is I don't think the best technology is here. And if we pass regulations that slam the door shut on innovation and say, well, we're going to grandfather these other products, going to make it very, very difficult for new projects to compete with them. That's great for XRP. In my capacity as like a ripple employee and a ripple stockholder and someone who holds digital assets, that's great for me. But as like a human being who wants like the best solutions for the world, that's not a good solution. Like the best solution creates a level playing field that doesn't benefit, that doesn't overly preference the past. Like the thing that I found great about Bitcoin is that I didn't have to use the systems that like enrich the incumbents and I could build something new. Well, let's if we take that away and we say, oh, well, let's just build a system that enriches the incumbents, but they're different incumbents, you know, meet the old boss, same as the new boss, same as the old boss. I genuinely want innovation, even if those are not the innovations that personally benefit me, because I believe that like I and everyone else can best thrive in a marketplace where customers can get the best experiences, at least the biggest marketplaces. And then I'll get the business when the solutions that enrich me provide the best results. The problem with some of these privately owned firms, even those based outside of the US, I believe is while they may just be responding to the US government, they may just they're probably just looking out for their own business interests. I mean, you've gotten 13, maybe 11 exchanges that have delisted XRP following the decision and others that are saying we're not going to do business with them at all or restrict trading. I mean, do you see that trend reversing before there is decision like saying, hey, we have the ultimate authority to do this, we don't have to, but there's just too much controversy surrounding it. Yeah. It's very difficult for the industry to sort of cooperate and work together to achieve results that benefit everyone. This is a drum that I've been beating for a long this sort of we're all in this together drum.  And if you're the Ethereum guy, you're going to make the same argument that like, well, the US government has sort of semi-officially blessed Ethereum. So of course, he's going to want to put his project in the same bucket as our project. And then on the other side, like if you're an ICO that's kind of sketchy and maybe even a scam, you're going to be like, yeah, we want to be in the same room with the XRP guy and like, I don't want to bless those projects because like many of them are scams. And so what's happened is everybody has tried to draw the line just at their preferred project, right?  And if you're an Ethereum guy, you want to say, yeah, Bitcoin's fine, Ethereum's fine, but you know, I don't know about all that other stuff, right? And like everybody wants to draw the line. And I'll be completely honest, like, I would love to be able to go to regulators and say, this is the principle that you should enact into law. This is what's good. And this is what's bad. And of course, I would hope that like XRP would fall on the good side. Otherwise, like, I wouldn't be happy advocating that standard. But like, I would like to have at least then everybody would know whether what they're doing is okay or not. But it's very difficult to draw a bright line standard. My number one recommendation to US regulators is like, look at the rest of the world and don't get out of step. Like at least remain competitive. Because if these businesses are going to become massive multi-billion dollar corporations, they're going to be the new, you know, the new internet companies, don't fall out of step. Don't drive innovation over. Yeah, you can't, you can't fix the problem overnight. There's not one bill that's going to just, you know, make everything better immediately. I wish there was. That's not realistic. But what is realistic is to say, don't fall out of step. Don't drive innovation overseas. Like it's obvious what you shouldn't do, at least to me. There's no telling what the digital economy is going to be like two, five, 10, let alone 100 years down the road. But do you see that going like completely digital, whether it is a CBDC, digital dollars, or do you see like us turning completely like towards cryptocurrencies rather than central authorities? I do think that newer systems are going to pretty much completely replace old ones. Now, what the characteristics of those newer systems are is a different question. We have payment systems today that date back to the days where the bank's computers had giant reels of magnetic tape, and you couldn't communicate with other banks during the day because the reels were on the computer that that bank was using and someone had to carry them across the room or across the hall to the computer that communicated with the other banks. Like we still have standards to this day that are based on operating in that day. That's one of the reasons why when you make a payment at a bank, they don't know the path the payment is going to take typically. They can't tell you the fees. They can't tell you the rate you're going to get because their systems are just not built that way. A lot of people don't know that the companies like Amazon, Airbnb, and Uber have hundreds of payment engineers whose job is to keep them plugged into these ancient payment systems and hundreds of different payment systems. So it's a long-winded way of saying like digital assets are here at the right time because those systems could be built on blockchain technology. They could be built around digital assets. Now, the next question is of course, will they? And that's a harder question. I think part of it is going to depend on what the competitive landscape looks like. If central banks embrace CBDCs and inject technologies that people like and want to use, then I think they can cut out big market share. And I think there's also a sort of marketplace for liquidity. Another problem that happens right now is if I want to make payments, I typically have to preplace the money in the destination market or my payment is very slow. I'm sure you know that companies like Seagate have millions of dollars spread throughout the world. So if they need to pay somebody a vendor in Thailand, they can make that payment for money that's already in Thailand. That's going to change. It makes much more sense to have a market where any person or business who just happens to have money in Thailand that doesn't particularly need to be there could make the payment for Seagate and Seagate could pay them in some other asset like that marketplace for liquidity. There are companies that provide that liquidity as a service, but they don't provide a marketplace. And so you can't take advantage of the person who has the lowest cost of capital or the most like Apple has billions of dollars stuck in Ireland. It just happens to be there. They could make payments into Ireland for people and get money out of Ireland and make money in the process. But there's no marketplace for them to do that. So I think digital assets will compete in open marketplaces that are the way these technologies are going to be built. I think those big firms have all those assets, the ones based in the US anyway, have those assets abroad just for tax purposes rather than any indication for payments. Sure. And right. And yet though, if they could make a profit, maybe Apple might not be the best example. But if you could make a profit, like let's say Apple wanted to get repatriate that some of that money, they could do it at a profit if they allow other people to pick the timing. Like if they don't particularly care, right? That's the core of market making is like the market maker doesn't get to pick the timing, but they get to make a spread because the other party picks the timing. So like if Apple or anyone who has money someplace it doesn't particularly need to be could easily offer that as liquidity for someone who needs money in that place, like that would be a marketplace that would be beneficial to everyone. And that was kind of the first vision that I had in the early days was like these global pools of liquidity that anyone could contribute to and draw off. Of course, we're not there yet. So you see more of the future as people going to a popular payment provider, at least ones that has the means and ability to do so, rather than establishing their own systems, even as the technology may become easy to understand, that we may get rather than old school firms like looking to just develop their own payment systems, rather than ones that are starting off the ground to develop their own. You still see them going to like a central firm like Ripple. So what I'm saying is that I think things like liquidity will be commoditized and sort of input and output endpoints will be commoditized. So if you think about a company like imagine you're a large remittance company, you might have 5,000 places where people in the United States can hand cash over the counter. But I can't use those unless you also have the cross currency capability and you have cash out or some payment in the place on making the remittance. You have to be able to provide all three pieces because that's not commoditized. So essentially if a company that had 5,000 cash in locations in the United States offered that as a piece in a marketplace, then you could go to any provider that hooked you up to that market. It's like a stock market, right? You can go to any broker and you get access to the same stock market. But there's features, there's distinguishing features between brokers and it's nice that they compete with each other because that gives you better access to that sort of common resource. So I think I see that kind of two layer approach where there are these commoditized components that everybody has access to and then there'll be service providers who will be providing people access. But I will say one other thing which is I think like the biggest success case for Ripple that I could imagine would be for us to be completely unnecessary. Like if Ripple didn't need to do anything and everybody could just use the assets that work best for them without you know already because that technology existed, we're building technologies not so much because we want to build them, but because they're necessary for our success case. Most of what we're doing is creating markets. Most of what we're doing is enabling people to access these technologies. We're not doing that because that's the specific thing that we set out to monetize. We're doing that because we need the world where there's that target market so that the real like the more the real exciting things can happen. So I think this is kind of a this is kind of like the precursor to the next phase.  Gotta talk because everyone else is everywhere at every single time.  Yeah.  So I'll share the story on that and then I'll tell you more about how I feel about NFTs.  You know, I knew Vitalik, we had we had we had discussed some of the ideas behind Ethereum, you know, and I knew that he was a very brilliant person. And I was excited to like buy into Ethereum at the earliest opportunity and I did. And I think I paid something like, you know, 25 cents per unit per ETH. And then three years later, ETH hit a dollar. And I sold all 40,000 ETH to put solar panels on my house. And I thought I was an investment genius.  And the other thing that was like it was bouncing between 80 cents and a dollar. And so I figured the next time it hits a dollar, I'll sell and the next time it hits 80 cents, maybe I'll buy back. Well, it didn't hit 80 cents again. And you can do the math. That would be worth about 40 million. So I sold as an NFT, a drone photo of those solar panels, you know, they're a part of, you know, the cryptocurrency lore, I guess, and it sold for $250, which I thought was, you know, kind of cool. And but the reason I did it wasn't because, you know, I wanted $250, although, you know, I'm not going to complain. But I did it because I wanted to sort of explore the NFT ecosystem and get the experience and cradle to grave of creating one and see what that experience was like. And there were some interesting like hiccups in the experience. One interesting hiccup was the person who bought the NFT had to pay about $140 in gas fees to transfer the NFT on Ethereum. And the interesting thing about that, I think, and I don't know if this is because of early days or if this is this is going to be a key characteristic is like the NFT ecosystem doesn't seem to care about decentralization and censorship resistance. And people don't even care what blockchain their NFT is on or if it's on a blockchain, like if you look at the biggest participants in the space, NDA top shots, a good example, they have a fantastic user experience. But I don't think anybody knows or cares like exactly how they've implemented the NFTs. This is a complete opposite that like this is a target market that's not super concerned about how the technology works. And to some extent, that's how it should be. Like if I'm offering you a product or a service, you might be interested in how the technology works as curiosity. But if I if that's my pitch to you, like if you should buy a Tesla because the technology is amazing, that has to be because the technology is amazing. And that translates into direct like concrete benefits for you. It can't be that it's it's cool in some abstract sense. That's not a good way to sell to sell a product like to a mass market. They have to see tangible benefits from that.  I just don't know exactly how right now they're tapping into the collector vibe. So typically a person who buys an NFT is because they want to have something nobody else has. And it doesn't matter too much what that something is. It could be a connection to some historical event, or some person they respect a sports figure, an artist, that seems to be what it is now. But I will say, I do think that there are huge practical problems that NFTs could potentially in the future solve. And I'll give you my favorite example. I bought movies like on my cable service and I bought movies on Netflix and I bought movies on Amazon Prime and I bought music on Spotify and I bought games on Steam. But what happens is like I have this massive portfolio of digital rights that just spread out through all of these services and I have no ability to manage it. And that hurts the developer, the people who create that. If you're an artist or if you're a distributor of a movie, you have a couple of weeks in which your movie or song is hot and you need to make as much money during that time as possible. You don't want me to rent it in the hopes that maybe a year from now I'll rent it again. You want me to buy it for $17.99 because it's never going to get $17.99 again. But one of the things that's a drag on that purchase is I'm thinking well Hulu is $70 a month. If I decide I don't want to keep paying $70 a month I lose this movie. So maybe I'll just rent it because I don't know that I'm going to still be subscribed to Hulu next year or two and two years when I might want to watch this again. That's good for Hulu because Hulu knows that I lose if I stop paying them $70 a month I lose all these movies I bought. But that's bad for me because Hulu might not support my devices, they might raise their prices, they might not have the best user experience and it's bad for the movie, the people selling the rights to the movie because they want me to spend that $17.99 with no fear and I'm worried that I won't be able to access it in a year or two. So you could imagine if we had an NFT marketplace where instead of me going to Hulu to buy the rights to a movie I bought it in the marketplace and then I took that right to Hulu. That's better for me, that's better for the person selling the rights and it might even be better for Hulu because Hulu will get the customers who get the best experience on Hulu and if Hulu can attract new customers who can then take their existing, it makes the marketplace more competitive. That same commoditization I was talking about before, it commoditizes the reach and gives the customer the ability to protect the service that's best for them. So I think you could see NFT is like solving real problems maybe in the future. So I'm optimistic that like it's a new technology, it's early days, it's having trouble finding product market fit, it has found a few spectacular ones, but I do think that there is something there. All right sir, well I've taken up enough of your time, I think that's got a lot of clarity today and yeah, thank you very much for speaking with me. Oh it was an absolute pleasure Turner, thank you so much for interviewing me. May the Schwartz be with you.


What can we do at a time when the truth of the Church is under attack in our own cities, parishes, homes, and even at times in our own hearts? As every day arises with its new joys, sorrows, challenges, and distractions, we can easily become wrapped up in the repetition of days that we forget what it truly means to live, to have life, and have it abundantly. We forget that we are called at every stage of life to know and experience the love of Christ, to seek Him with renewed passion, to deepen our love of Him through shared community, through prayer, through the Scriptures, through the Spirit, and through the sacraments. What can we do? We can come together and counter Christ and be empowered and equipped to go and rebuild His Church. We as humans always get into a rut of just life and just kind of getting into the busyness of life. And one really important thing is that we need to pull away from our lives every once in a while and just spend some time doing something that's going to increase our spirituality. This is the Studentville conferences offer adults that opportunity. When you open up the Gospel of John in the first chapter, it's very simple. He tells people, come and see, come and see. We're striving to restore all things in Christ, to restore to what the original vision of the founder was, of our God was, that we'd be good and faithful, to restore all things, to be able to reach out to all of our brothers and sisters, to help them, to bring them into that relationship with Christ.  This is so wonderful. The response to that, God loves me, God loves me, is a life of service to the church and to one another. As we need to go back, instead of just seeing the people with the crowd, go back and start loving the people, get close to them, pour ourselves out to them, for them, with them. Go rebuild the church is not just the church or the diocese of Studentville or the church here in the local community. It is the United States, it is the world that we need to be able to be prepared to embrace. No matter which one of the five conferences that we offer for the adults, at the heart of it is simply, we want to help people have that renewed encounter with the love of Christ. The proof is in the tasting, so come taste and see that the Lord is good. He is present at Franciscan University, nobody goes away disappointed. People really do encounter Christ at this special place and through these conferences.


CRC-Day 3 is a single-layer ferromagnetic semiconductor with strong spin lattice coupling and a large number of phononic modes sensitive to its magnetic ordering transition. This article was authored by L. D. Castro, A. J. Klune, M. O. YOKOSUK and others.


Hello shipmates, I'm here to talk about cyber security. Cyber security is a shared responsibility. The cyber threat from a variety of sources including nation-states, profit-motivated criminals, and ideologically motivated hackers, extremists, and terrorists is real. This affects our ability to fight and it costs us money. The numbers speak for themselves. The team defending our Navy Marine Corps internet blocks approximately three and a half million spam messages and prevents more than 231 million unauthorized intrusion attempts every month. Throughout DOD, there are over 41 million scans, probes, and attacks of DOD networks every month.  The Navy is under cyber attack. You are under cyber attack. Hackers are threatening our personal and professional security and caution us precious resources. The annual cost of cyber crime against consumers is $113 billion. That is why during October we started providing details on cyber security to threat how attackers compromise our defenses and what the Navy is doing as a whole and what you can do. Cyber security is something we all have to focus on each and every time we log on to a Navy network or use a system that connects to the network. We all have a responsibility to protect our Navy networks and systems and ultimately the security of our shipmates.