4 ms·

I'm not familiar with that person (poster?). But taken to the extreme it could also be an endorsement for Communism or something like it too, but I don't think

by hnick 6y ago

I'm not familiar with that person (poster?). But taken to the extreme it could also be an endorsement for Communism or something like it too, but I don't think it's usually healthy to take things to the extreme. I prefer a middle ground and the original intent (at least as much as is commonly told) around copyright, trade secrets, and patents seemed to be a relatively healthy take on that even if it now needs an update. Depending which path you choose there's a trade-off between how much the creator gets and how much society gets, with varying degrees of control, protection, and communal ownership. The creator gets to choose, but they have a limited set of choices agreed upon by society, rather than individual agreements for every item we buy.

severine 6y ago
> I'm not familiar with that person (poster?). But taken to the extreme it could also be an endorsement for Communism or something like it too I think this example might serve: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22250260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22250260
- hnick 6y ago
  I see. Well that seems to mostly talk about physical property. That makes sense - there is one thing, it takes effort to make more, and only one person can have it at a time. Many people have a problem with equating "theft" to intellectual property since the concept doesn't map directly. If I make a dining table, I shouldn't have to hand it over to my country after a "limited" time (life of the creator plus 70 years now, isn't it?). But perhaps other people should be able to create similar looking tables after a while, to help advance any new techniques or artistic styles used. Ideas can be used while still belonging to the creator. If I try to block that cultural evolution with a license of some kind, I think I'm doing a disservice to the culture that helped me create the table. Anyway, does that still relate to the article? Probably not, I was replying more to the concept that everything is made in isolation so full control should be kept. As a society we already decided that doesn't always apply to IP which books are definitely part of. If we aren't careful in separating the concepts of products and ideas, then we get tractors we aren't allowed to fix.

by hnick 6y ago

severine 6y ago

> I'm not familiar with that person (poster?). But taken to the extreme it could also be an endorsement for Communism or something like it too I think this example might serve: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22250260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22250260

hnick 6y ago
I see. Well that seems to mostly talk about physical property. That makes sense - there is one thing, it takes effort to make more, and only one person can have it at a time. Many people have a problem with equating "theft" to intellectual property since the concept doesn't map directly. If I make a dining table, I shouldn't have to hand it over to my country after a "limited" time (life of the creator plus 70 years now, isn't it?). But perhaps other people should be able to create similar looking tables after a while, to help advance any new techniques or artistic styles used. Ideas can be used while still belonging to the creator. If I try to block that cultural evolution with a license of some kind, I think I'm doing a disservice to the culture that helped me create the table. Anyway, does that still relate to the article? Probably not, I was replying more to the concept that everything is made in isolation so full control should be kept. As a society we already decided that doesn't always apply to IP which books are definitely part of. If we aren't careful in separating the concepts of products and ideas, then we get tractors we aren't allowed to fix.