5 ms·

The illegal number argument is a red herring. First of all it depends on your encoding. Second most humans in the world seem to be able to understand the differ

by jules 16y ago

The illegal number argument is a red herring. First of all it depends on your encoding. Second most humans in the world seem to be able to understand the difference between a number and e.g. a piece of software. There might not be a difference theoretically, but in practice it works fine. Would you want to allow people to print their own money? After all that's just arranging a series of atoms in a particular way. You can't disallow arranging atoms, or the world will come to a halt. Yet in practice these arbitrary rules seem to work fine.

baddox 16y ago
Saying that you understand the difference between a number and a piece of software is incorrect if you are unable to voice or in any way formalize the difference. I don't see the difference: if I store the number 82 in binary as a byte of memory, it is physically identical to storing the letter 'R' encoding as ASCII. If I concatenate thousands of these bytes, I'll have a huge binary number, which isn't illegal, right? What if that number happens to be the ASCII encoding of a novel protected by copyright? Not only is there no theoretical or intuitive difference, there is literally no physical difference at all. The same bytes are stored in memory; the same exact positioning of bits of silicon (or magnetic particles, dark/light spots on a metal disc, etc.) exist. If we had the technology to make copies on an atomic level, I believe this would indeed pose a fundamental philosophical and legal debate, especially for patented things like manufacturing materials and drugs. With money, however, intellectual property has nothing to do with it, and (at least in the US) counterfeiting is a completely separate orthogonal crime.
- jules 16y ago
  Can you provide a formal definition of murder? I take it you cannot. Does that mean that we should allow murder? That a law with a different name is protecting money is irrelevant. The point is disallowing manipulating atoms in a certain way. Another one: can you give a formal definition of what constitutes a $1 bill? Again, you cannot. Does that mean that we should allow copying money? A formal definition is not necessary for something to be put in the law.

by jules 16y ago

baddox 16y ago

Saying that you understand the difference between a number and a piece of software is incorrect if you are unable to voice or in any way formalize the difference. I don't see the difference: if I store the number 82 in binary as a byte of memory, it is physically identical to storing the letter 'R' encoding as ASCII. If I concatenate thousands of these bytes, I'll have a huge binary number, which isn't illegal, right? What if that number happens to be the ASCII encoding of a novel protected by copyright? Not only is there no theoretical or intuitive difference, there is literally no physical difference at all. The same bytes are stored in memory; the same exact positioning of bits of silicon (or magnetic particles, dark/light spots on a metal disc, etc.) exist. If we had the technology to make copies on an atomic level, I believe this would indeed pose a fundamental philosophical and legal debate, especially for patented things like manufacturing materials and drugs. With money, however, intellectual property has nothing to do with it, and (at least in the US) counterfeiting is a completely separate orthogonal crime.

jules 16y ago
Can you provide a formal definition of murder? I take it you cannot. Does that mean that we should allow murder? That a law with a different name is protecting money is irrelevant. The point is disallowing manipulating atoms in a certain way. Another one: can you give a formal definition of what constitutes a $1 bill? Again, you cannot. Does that mean that we should allow copying money? A formal definition is not necessary for something to be put in the law.