3 ms·

> First, you need to stop thinking in terms of 'algorithms' and 'spinning'. It's irrelevant and confuses the discussion. This is HN, not a court of law. It is

by dejb 16y ago

> First, you need to stop thinking in terms of 'algorithms' and 'spinning'. It's irrelevant and confuses the discussion. This is HN, not a court of law. It is entirely appropriate to use technical language here. I think if you understood what 'spinning' was you'd see that it was relevant to the legal situation even if these exact words may never be used in a legal action (although the very pre-existence of concrete spinning programs would actually be relevant as evidence that a deliberate process of copying had occurred). > why 95% of legal chatter amongst technical people on the internet is meaningless to lawyers I'd argue that a similar percentage of lawyers' technical discussions are meaningless to the reality of technology. As we move forward I'll wager that the lawyers will be the ones needing to do a greater percentage of the adjusting if they are to remain relevant.

roel_v 16y ago
> It is entirely appropriate to use technical language here. Of course. I'm not telling anyone what to do. What I meant was, that to understand the legal issues, the explanations in these terms are irrelevant and obfuscate the thought processes that lead to the legal understanding of the situation. I understand perfectly what spinning is. But 'algorithmic spinning' is irrelevant in this context. It's not about the level or nature of mechanical changes. One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways. It's orthogonal to the system. > As we move forward I'll wager that the lawyers will be the ones needing to do a greater percentage of the adjusting if they are to remain relevant. Thanks for making my point for me. It's this technocratically warped world view that lies at the basis of the bigger part of misunderstandings about the legal field and how it relates to technology. The technical details are seldom relevant in most technology legal issues. or at least in a very different way than technologically oriented people look at it.
- dejb 16y ago
  > One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways. What about evidence? Presumably the copyright 'deriver' isn't just going to honestly detail how they stole the work. Surely an important part of the evidence is going to be what process was used to derive the work? If it can be established that an existing software package would produce an identical derivation surely that would be an important part of the evidence. Without understanding the processes of transformation (i.e. the spinning process) it may not be possible to accurately gauge the likelihood of the work having been derived versus a coincidence. This all seems to be firmly in the realm of quantities to me. > It's this technocratically warped world view that lies at the basis of the bigger part of misunderstandings about the legal field and how it relates to technology. I think the 'technocratically warped world view' is based on the notion that the function of the legal system is ultimately to serve society - not the other way around. Given that technological change is the major driver of social change it will necessarily also drive changes in the legal system. Situations where ancient laws and ignorant judges determine cases represent failures of the legal system and the more it fails the less relevant and powerful it must become for society to flourish. Inevitably it will be the legal system that needs to 'warp' itself towards the technocratic one rather than the other way around. Of course what I'm talking about is a medium/long term trend. Anyone expecting this to happen in any individual legal case would be making a big mistake.

by dejb 16y ago

roel_v 16y ago

> It is entirely appropriate to use technical language here. Of course. I'm not telling anyone what to do. What I meant was, that to understand the legal issues, the explanations in these terms are irrelevant and obfuscate the thought processes that lead to the legal understanding of the situation. I understand perfectly what spinning is. But 'algorithmic spinning' is irrelevant in this context. It's not about the level or nature of mechanical changes. One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways. It's orthogonal to the system. > As we move forward I'll wager that the lawyers will be the ones needing to do a greater percentage of the adjusting if they are to remain relevant. Thanks for making my point for me. It's this technocratically warped world view that lies at the basis of the bigger part of misunderstandings about the legal field and how it relates to technology. The technical details are seldom relevant in most technology legal issues. or at least in a very different way than technologically oriented people look at it.

dejb 16y ago
> One shouldn't think about legal issues in quantitative ways. What about evidence? Presumably the copyright 'deriver' isn't just going to honestly detail how they stole the work. Surely an important part of the evidence is going to be what process was used to derive the work? If it can be established that an existing software package would produce an identical derivation surely that would be an important part of the evidence. Without understanding the processes of transformation (i.e. the spinning process) it may not be possible to accurately gauge the likelihood of the work having been derived versus a coincidence. This all seems to be firmly in the realm of quantities to me. > It's this technocratically warped world view that lies at the basis of the bigger part of misunderstandings about the legal field and how it relates to technology. I think the 'technocratically warped world view' is based on the notion that the function of the legal system is ultimately to serve society - not the other way around. Given that technological change is the major driver of social change it will necessarily also drive changes in the legal system. Situations where ancient laws and ignorant judges determine cases represent failures of the legal system and the more it fails the less relevant and powerful it must become for society to flourish. Inevitably it will be the legal system that needs to 'warp' itself towards the technocratic one rather than the other way around. Of course what I'm talking about is a medium/long term trend. Anyone expecting this to happen in any individual legal case would be making a big mistake.