[DECtalk] decTalk and speech-fx-inc

Jayson Smith jaybird at bluegrasspals.com
Tue Jul 23 09:11:51 EDT 2019


Hi,

Let me go in a different direction with this. Before we get started, let 
me say as a disclaimer that I do not now, nor have I ever owned an 
automobile, so this is just an example.

So you walk up to my car, use your fancy new matter replicator, and make 
yourself an exact copy, then drive off in your newly-acquired car. 
Meanwhile, my car is still very much mine, and I can make use of it in 
every way I could before. In fact, depending on how your replicator 
works and what I was doing at the time (maybe you replicated my car 
while I was asleep inside my house) I might not even know there was a 
doppelganger making the rounds.

That is, until something happens to expose it. It could be that you get 
into an accident, get pulled over for some reason, etc. The problem is, 
even if you changed the license plate, your car still has my car's VIN, 
or Vehicle Identification Number, which is sort of like a serial number 
for automobiles. Eventually something's going to happen and the fact 
will come out that there are two cars with identical VINs, which should 
never happen. And yes, as Don said, any unique flaws in my car (a dent 
in the hood, a scratch on the back passenger door, etc.) will be just as 
faithfully replicated and appear on your car.

So now we have two identical cars on the streets. The case probably 
eventually ends up in court. Since I'm the one who originally purchased 
the car, it's going to be me, not you, who can provide the proof to seal 
the deal. I, not you, will be able to furnish the purchase receipt, 
title, etc. And if some of those documents were in the car when you 
replicated it, and you now have copies of them as well, I've still got 
you beat. Unless I left a laptop, hard drive, etc. with all my account 
numbers, logins, passwords, etc. in the car at the time you replicated 
it, it's going to be me, not you, who can provide bank statements and 
other circumstantial evidence to support the claim that I'm the legal 
owner of the car. So in the end, even though you never denied me the use 
of my car in any way, shape, form, or fashion, you're still guilty of 
theft, because you have benefited from that which was not lawfully yours 
to use.

Now to address your recent message about matter replication being 
commonplace. Obviously if and when matter replication at a level anyone 
can use becomes a reality, there will be a major disruption in many 
industries. For a while, people will replicate anything they want, 
anytime they want. But eventually, laws would be put in place to control 
the sale of replication technology and/or punish illegal replication. 
And manufacturers would probably try all sorts of tricks to defeat 
replication technology, and we'd be right back where we are today with 
digital goods (books, music, movies, software) where there's a war going 
on between those who make these products and those who would make a 
quick buck by selling, giving away, or just using illegal copies.

Just my thoughts,

Jayson

On 7/23/2019 2:06 AM, Don wrote:
> On 7/22/2019 8:48 PM, Josh Kennedy wrote:
>> Again, if you are not driving your car, I’ll just use 
>> matter-replication to
>> replicate myself a copy of your car, that way you still have your car 
>> and I
>> have my copy of your car. I would just need to pay for a driver’s 
>> license to
>> prove I am fit to drive. Nobody has to know your car was 
>> matter-replicated
>> with futuristic technology.
>
> And my lawyer would have your vehicle seized as evidence in the case 
> against
> you.  The same matter replication technology would be used to PROVE 
> that you
> had an IDENTICAL copy of my car -- not one that was manufactured 
> separately
> from mine -- even if manufactured using matter-replication technology 
> ("Gee,
> how is it that your car has the same DENT in the hood that mine does?  
> Down
> to the molecular level?!  (sort of like DNA).  This would undoubtedly be
> seen as /prima facie/ evidence of the theft -- without ever having to 
> prove
> when and where you committed the crime (just like "receiving stolen 
> goods").
>
> More and more product development effort (esp with regard to software) is
> going into preventing and detecting counterfeiting.  That's effort that
> COULD have gone into making the product better.
>
> Wait until you have to be online to use that new-fangled speech 
> synthesizer
> and the software validates your license IN REAL TIME and refuses to 
> "speak"
> unless you've paid this month's license fee!  Not only will you not own a
> license for "unlimited use on a single machine" but you'll have to pay
> a subscription fee to maintain your license... even if you aren't 
> using it
> this month!
>
> [Obviously, the software developers must think of this sort of 
> unauthorized
> use as THEFT if they are investing this sort of effort into preventing or
> detecting it!  And, the cost of investing in those "protections" gets
> passed on to the customer!]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>



More information about the Dectalk mailing list