Correct. The greater principle is freedom. Copyright is supposed to be a temporary trade of limitation of freedom in exchange for the progress of art.

> Isn't that up to the individual to decide?

An individual can decide to do or be whatever they want, the entitlement aspect comes into play when we talk about what others are obligated to do in support of that.

Contrived example: As an recording artist, you're probably not going to make money selling CDs because people will copy them. We can say the artist is entitled to do this and make CD burners illegal, and now I lose the ability to back up any type of files using this technology, which reduces my freedom for things not related to copying music CDs. I don't think an artist selling CDs is worth this loss of freedom; I support myself working a 9 to 5 job-doing something other than selling easily copyable CDs, and this is something the artist can do as well.

If it's on their physical property.

> Is it not inherently theirs?

No. For example, a creator of a song does not own my hard drive.

> What's the difference with e.g. a piece of bread?

Operating system calls used in copying data locally and sending/receiving network data locally/remotely fail on pieces of bread, but don't on a series of bits that when given to an .mp3 player make sound.

> So it's legal to steal stuff that you were never going to buy anyway?

Saying somethng is stealing X is a false premise if the owner is not deprived of X. Saying X is depriving Y of future profits is false unless you know for a fact that X was going buy anything from Y.

Someone using a physical property can possibly deprive others of its use. This applies to the physical mediums of songs, movies, or books, but not the songs, movies, or text of the books themselves.

Intellectual property isn't real, it's a concept that exists to support copyright, which exists for this exact purpose stated in the Constitution:

"[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I'm ok with accepting a temporary limitation on my freedom to support those who make songs, movies, or books, but life of the author + 70 years, plus the ability to assign the right to corporations which don't die, is not reasonably "limited" these days. It should be something like 5 years today.

No one is entitled to be a songwriter, movie director, or author; society needs people doing other things too.

I don't see how. Help me understand. Explain how kids with bad parents are suffering because parents might get fined or other legal action if they don't prevent their children from doing things they shouldn't with property the parents give them.

> By your logic, a strip club has no obligation to keep children out because that's the parents' job

It really is the parent's job. I don't have a problem with local regulations saying certain businesses can't attract minors, but unless people in the business are going up to children and saying "hey why don't you come here" or there is some other type of enticement, the far more important question is why you're letting your children go to or near a strip club.

> I'm adding the discussion of an actual solution

Hard disagree. All your preceding posts in this thread could be validly summarized "it won't be so bad if done the right way, so just accept it" and each post is simply increasing the amount of "think of the children" histronics. Looking at your other posts, I see heuristics of agenda pushing, such as posts consisteing of walls of text and repetition of key points. I won't engage this thread anymore as I don't believe you are discussing in good faith. Peace.

No child is accessing the Internet without something a parent allowed them (or a different child) to have.

Bad parents are the root of most of societal ills. This is an example of the "terrible people" you mention. Societies need to take a serious look at that. You can require all the privacy-preserving ID checks you want and completely hollow out all rights in the name of children, but you're still going to have the root causes that create bad parents who harm their children through neglect and abuse. ID checks won't stop bad parents from being bad parents.

I don't know what you're adding to conversations about this other than "it won't be so bad if done the right way, so just accept it."

Broadcasts go to all IPv4 addresses in the subnet, multicasts only go to those who subscribed to a multicast group. To subscribe to a IPv6 multicast group you need an IPv6 address. So all IPv6 interfaces will have at least one LLA self-generated.

One thing that IPv6 uses multicast heavily for is NDP, which is the IPv6 version of ARP. This is how IP addresses on your LAN/WLAN are converted to MAC addresses which is required info for the NIC in your node to talk to another node on your Ethernet LAN/WLAN.

End users don't typically have to use LLAs directly but you can use them if you want to 100% ensure things won't leave your LAN as routers don't forward LLAs.

But parents should be penalized/inconvenienced if they can't control their children, not the store/website.

In some states, bounty hunters can find violators of various laws and bring them to the state in exchange for money. Allowing bountry hunters to be on the lookout for underagers trying to enter stores and report them could be a profitable endeavor for both the bounty hunters and the state, providing a market-based incentive to protecting children.

Stores/websites should only be penalized if they are specifically targeting and inviting children to enter.

Certainly there are some types of stores that are very safe for children to enter. So, the exception should be structured like this: "Stores that only sell these items mean that parents will not be fined if children enter it unaccompanied." Additional conditions could be attached, e.g. "a safe store shall verify the ID of anyone purchasing alcohol." And maybe other benefits can be attached to being a "safe" store, like tax incentives, etc. If the store violates that condition, then it should pay a fine or lose any other benefits of being considered a "safe" store. But a business should have a right not to be a "safe store" and the duty to prevent children from entering those should 100% fall on the parents.

If these rules go into effect, is it not true that individuals, state governments, and non-governmental organizations could still fund scientific research that the federal government won't fund?

Of course there's still research that only the federal government could fund. A big example is e.g. DARPA and the Internet. Imagine if that was only funded and supported by a few states.

If there's no one on the other side, then it's just stimulation. Which is fine if that's what you want. It's something like the difference between watching an OnlyFans model versus an erotic video your significant other made for you.

What sidestepped part of that conversion was using variables instead of literal constants. So, doing something like N0=0, and using the variable N0 instead of 0 was faster.

Additionally, C64 looked up variables in the order they were defined, so variables defined later were slower. If your program used 0 a lot, you'd want to have N0=0 as the first statement in your program. I typically had N0=0 and N1=1 as those were common to use.

QBasic was so much faster and implemented differently. DEFINT A-Z at the top of the program typically sped it up significantly if you didn't use floating point. This might have worked on GW-BASIC as well.