183
The Flock Sock (makerworld.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by avguser@lemmy.world to c/privacy@programming.dev
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sometimes a camera just needs a sock.

The Flock Sock is a slip on cover designed to help protect a Flock camera from the harmful radiation of the sun. Your city spent their very own hard earned tax dollars scattering these cameras everywhere to keep you safe, all it cost you was a little privacy. The very least you can do is help protect these valuable civil servants from getting a bad sunburn.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

You can't "steal" IP. Ideas aren't ownable.

[-] modem_down@thebrainbin.org -1 points 2 weeks ago

Spoken like a plagiarism-happy AI tech bro, repackaging other people’s effort for profit.

In the context of IP, “theft” is an idiomatic way to say “infringement”. It’s bizarre of you to suggest it doesn’t exist: infringement law is quite well settled in most parts of the world.

IP doesn’t refer to “ideas”. It refers to creative works. If you’ve ever spent effortful hours/weeks/years:

  • composing music
  • recording music
  • writing a novel, textbook, poem, teaching plan, essay, or a scientific paper
  • painting a portrait
  • etc

then you’ll know why the difference between “an idea” and a creative work is sometimes called “sweat of the brow”.

[-] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 6 points 1 week ago

No, spoken like someone who has copyleft all my work, both hardware and software.

Fuck AI. And fuck copyright laws.

AI bros want to steal other people's work and then copyright the output, and still sue others.

I'm saying you can't steal other people's ideas a and nobody should have the right to copyright anything. We are not the same.

[-] modem_down@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 week ago

spoken like someone who has copyleft all of my work… fuck copyright laws

You seem to be confusing copyleft with public domain.

They are not the same.

Copyleft licenses entirely rely on copyright law. In the words of the people who invented copyleft:

Copyleft is a way of using the copyright on the program. It doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the mirror image of “right.”

Public domain, OTOH, which is what you seem to be promoting, is a gift to AI tech bros, who want to behave as the middlemen described in the same article:

[IP] in the public domain, uncopyrighted … allows people to share [it], if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert [it] into proprietary [IP]. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the [latter] do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.

[-] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 1 points 1 week ago

I'm not confusing it. I'm aware if it.

We built what we have within the framework of laws made for the purposes of capitalistic domination.

Ideally we'd eliminate copyright law and replace it with copyleft law. As of now, no copyleft laws exist

[-] modem_down@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 week ago

Ideally we’d eliminate copyright law and replace it with copyleft law

Fair enough, but it would still regulate what people can legally do with creative works. So, it would still be IP law - which a few comments ago you implied couldn’t/shouldn’t exist.

this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
183 points (97.9% liked)

Privacy

5070 readers
266 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Ategon@programming.dev
danielintempesta@programming.dev