Yall i dont have @redbubble!!! These are all just illegal stolen art of mine being slapped on to merchandise
Sorry I know many of you love that Khruangbin poster but the band has the rights to sell them & they want them limited-run for their fans at their concert! Also fuck you whoever is doing this - hope karma gets back at you. :-)
The road to becoming one of the world’s most famous gay porn stars began when Jeff Stryker workered as male stripper in Illinois. This led to delivering naked balloon-o-grams… then a local photographer sent shots of him to a gay adult film director in California. A Star Was Born.
Stryker’s first gay porn film was “Powertool” (1986). Through 2004 he had made more that 40 adult films - nearly all gay but a few bisexual too. It should be noted that Stryker never bottoms in his films. His hetrosexual movie “Jamie Loves Jeff” became one of the biggest selling hetero adult movies of all time.
Despite all the cornholing Styker has done on video, for a time he denied he was gay (“not even bisexual”). But more recently he has describes himself as ‘universal’. Bisexual is the likely answer, as at least one website reports he has a son (which he raised after the mother’s parental rights were terminated).
Stryker is an entrepreneur too. After getting a mold done of his penis and testicles, he marketed a flesh colored replica that has become one of the the largest selling dildo in history. Stryker has even sued to have his penis and it’s likeness part of his intellectual property rights. Stryker even marketed a 12 inch action figure of himself. It’s anatomically correct (proportioned to the size of the doll).
Beyond porn, Stryker has dabbled with other artistic endeavors including:
1988/1989 - acting in a new non-porn European horror films.
1999 - starred in touring stage play which climaxed with Stryker stripping down and revealing his powertool.
2003 - released a country music single (as Jeff Stryker and the Soggy Bottom Boys)
2006 - appearing in a one-man show written by comedy guru Bruce Vilanch.
Stryker credits his long career (and avoiding AIDS) by living in moderation, no hardcore substances, keeping a low profile, and perhaps most importantly keeping his personal life separate from his business life.
To avoid infringing on Stryker’s intellectual property (and get by tumblr’s censorship board) I present a photo of his discretely covered “powertool”.
There is no sense in which an idea can exist only “in the mind.” To come to understand and consider any idea is the outcome of actions such as learning and thinking, which require the employment of a substrate called the physical person. And to bring a given idea to mind from storage is also an action with specific costs.
Thinking of philosophy means that one is unable to also play football, at least not well. There is a choice and act involved in considering any given concept as opposed to any other, or to engaging in some other less abstract activity altogether. The mind does not exist without the substrate of body/brain. Nor is it reducible to such substrate.
Consciousness is an emergent layer of complexity that has evolved out of, and along with, biological structures. Those are scarce resources, which when used in one way cannot also be used in another incompatible way.
On the other hand, no idea exists outside the mind either. Ideas only register within active human understandings within each person. The external markers for ideas, such as books, or instantiations of ideas in the form of physical structures and systems, are, without the ongoing individual human activities of deriving and imputing meaning to them, merely so many rearranged atoms with no significance.
Significance comes about when living people relate to them as being meaningful. Just as the mind is emergent from and with the biological layer, ideas and meanings are emergent from and with the mind layer.
pirating a movie is fine not because intellectual property shouldn’t be a thing, but because fuck disney. using your friend’s OC without permission, though, only a monster would do that. it belongs to them. unless they’re a bad person in which case fuck them.
trade secrets make sense to me as legally protected property, patents theoretically but maybe not the real life patent system. Copyright im not sure; it has the same kind of appeal as trade secrets in that it’s an original creation but it’s not “naturally protectable” like a trade secret
Note that ‘trade secrets’ don’t really have much in the way of legal protection; I actually really like the trade secret vs. patent distinction, where you only get socially enforced temporary control of something *if* you tell the public how it works.
(ofc implementation details matter and our current system isn’t great)
ive read about ppl getting in trouble over trade scecrets… this guy
why do you say this if its something ppl can go to prison over
So it’s true that stealing trade secrets is illegal, but the thing that’s protected is the method of acquisition rather than the idea. If I patent “pasta sauce with both garam masala and five spice in it”, and you come up with the same brilliant idea a year later, I can sue you for infringement, even without proving (or there being) a causal connection between my marketing the sauce and you making the sauce.
But if the ingredients of my sauce are just a trade secret, there needs to be a person that leaked it (or you needed to have reverse engineered my sauce, which is itself a crime) for me to sue.
A neat thing about trade secrets is that they better assess “how hard was this to come up with?” since they allow for independent rediscovery. [If you can keep your recipe secret for a century, then you can still have your trade secret a century later!]
oh ok. Yeah I wouldn’t describe that as “don’t really have much in the way of legal protection” but it’s true
this is quite a lot of protection for the kind of thing i think should be patentable, that is, stuff where inventing it actually is limiting, since the only way for someone to compete with you is to make a significant investment in the invention or to steal it from you, and this constitutes a barrier to entry (if they can’t steal it from you)
making reverse engineering a crime sounds bad to me
yeah, that seems bad to me in the same way copyright seems bad, it’s basically the same thing
The thing about Trade Secrets is there generally needs to be a contractual agreement to keep it secret. Under both USandEU law, reverse engineering is allowed if there’s no contractual relationship between the secret holder and the discloser (of course, contracts forbidding reverse engineering are extremely common). Likewise for actual disclosure, it’s allowed unless there’s a non-disclosure agreement, but of course any employee who works with trade secrets is going to sign a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of their employment.
What’s special about trade secret law as opposed to it being just a contract is that it sometimes makes what would otherwise be a civil matter into a criminal offense, and it sometimes spreads liability wider than it otherwise would be spread. For example, the business person you linked to above didn’t sign any non-disclosure agreement himself, but he hired people who he knew had signed non-disclosure agreements and knew they were violating those agreements while working for him. From the DOJ press release:
The defendant then set up a U.S.-based corporation, CBM International, Inc., (CBMI) and hired ex-employees of a victim company that manufactured syntactic foam, located in Houston, Texas. These employees had access to trade secrets developed by the victim company, and the defendant was aware that they had signed agreements with the victim company not to disclose proprietary information. The former employees of the victim company then transferred proprietary information to CBMI and the defendant, who used the information to create a syntactic foam manufacturing process in China.
(ETA: Or if it’s otherwise unlawful. Like if they literally steal it from you, as in break into your offices and take something from them, that also qualifies even without a contractual relationship.)
