3 ms·

Obviously you have no interest in good faith discussion so I’ll leave it here.

breck 6y ago
It is not arguing in bad faith to say that no, the sun does not revolve around the earth and just because people repeat that a lot does not make it true. If you can name one single useful copyrighted work that is not composed of >90% "infringement" I'll apologize and shut up. Creators are not the creators they think they are. Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants, more so than they admit, even people who repeat that phrase. Creators should work for their income like the rest of us, and not depend on restricting the freedoms of others so that they can be more comfortable. The public domain is the only domain there should be. We abolished royalty in the USA but somehow we let the scourge of royalties remain. If you don't want people to share your ideas, fine, keep them to yourself. We don't need the help of any copyright leeches. We'll do just fine without those "contributions". -Breck, via the World Wide Web and TCP/IP
- fossuser 6y ago
  It’s bad faith to pretend slavery is the same as a limited time monopoly to incentivize people to create things. Imagine you’re creating a new country and you want people to make things, how can you incentivize this? One way is to give people who make things a small time where they can make money from their creations, especially in cases where creating the thing requires a lot of capital investment (drug discovery). In the case of patents, you want them to share the detailed specs on their inventions with the public rather than keeping them secret. This way people are incentivized to share their inventions with the public so they get the protection. Without copyright the bigger players and distributors make all the money. The only model possible is some donation based scheme which doesn’t work for high capital investment projects. Without patents companies keep everything a trade secret. There’s a lot of stuff in the modern world that would not exist in this one and a lot of people that make their money creating things that could not do so without IP law. Is copyright law today broken? Yes. Are software patents in particular stupid? Yes. Is copyright and patent law broken from first principles or in conflict with useful incentive structure in society? No. There’s nuance and complexity here - people like to make everything simple and one sided, but it’s not: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Imagine you’re creating a new country and you want people to make things, how can you incentivize this? You could pay them? > One way is to give people who make things a small time where they can make money from their creations, especially in cases where creating the thing requires a lot of capital investment (drug discovery). Yeah, you could claim the right to put your hands on anyone who made a copy of a creation, because you want people to make stuff and penalizing anyone other than the first person to make a thing helps the original artists get paid. Of course if you wanted to incentivize creators you could also not punish them for copying other creators because the copy is another creation that you claim to want. > Without copyright the bigger players and distributors make all the money. Honestly I think its the other way around, you have to be big enough to hire a lawyer to enforce your copyright, and the bigger you are, the more / better lawyers you can get. Mickey Mouse and Disney are the ur-counterexample here. > The only model possible is some donation based scheme which doesn’t work for high capital investment projects. Without patents companies keep everything a trade secret. There’s a lot of stuff in the modern world that would not exist in this one and a lot of people that make their money creating things that could not do so without IP law. Perhaps we would be better off without all of this. > Is copyright and patent law broken from first principles or in conflict with useful incentive structure in society? No. Hard disagree. Yes it is.
  - breck 6y ago
    > It’s bad faith to pretend slavery is the same as a limited time monopoly to incentivize people to create things. But copyrights and patents are a form of slavery. They are in no way, shape or form, a form of property rights. In fact, they are the exact opposite. You cannot have property rights and copyrights and patents. You get to have one or the other [0]. The only way you can reconcile the 2, is if you allow the possibility of having property rights over another person, which is by definition slavery. But moving beyond the semantic and rhetorical, who do you think benefits from patents and copyrights? People and corporations are still benefitting from copyrights from the years 1926-1965, when most African Americans were still fighting for their basic rights to vote. Do you think these laws are benefitting the descendants of slaves, or the descendants of slave owners? This is not a rhetorical question. You can do some research into who is getting the revenue from these laws and you will find an interesting distribution that resemble some earlier periods in history. There is no reason why people in poor cities should be barred from transmitting software peer to peer peacefully and instead forced via threat of violence to pay tithes to people like Bill Gates. > Imagine you’re creating a new country and you want people > to make things, how can you incentivize this? This argument is so asinine but very typical of the arguments proffered by those pushing #ImaginaryPropertyLaws. There is ZERO incentive NOT to innovate and make things. ZERO. "What's that daughter, you are hungry? Sorry I have no incentive to invent a better plough and feed you because if I were to do without patent laws then I can't stop other people from also benefitting from my idea."...."Oh Grandma, you're sick? I would try to find a cure but I have no incentive since if I were to find a cure I couldn't charge a royalty to other people who read about it." None of our most important things were built by people who gave a shit about copyright and patents and none of them ever will be. > There’s nuance and complexity here There is not. The sun does not revolve around the earth. There is no compromise ("I think we should compromise and say it revolves 70 percent around the earth"). You either decide to go with math and numbers and logic and first principles or you decide to go with whatever those in power decree. There is truth and lies. And some times the true things aren't the most well known things, and the lies get more airtime. #AbolishImaginaryProperty > Are software patents...stupid? Yes. Okay at least we agree on that. [0] https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html P.S. Not trying to harp on your personally, it's the industry as a whole that my anger is directed towards.

It is not arguing in bad faith to say that no, the sun does not revolve around the earth and just because people repeat that a lot does not make it true. If you can name one single useful copyrighted work that is not composed of >90% "infringement" I'll apologize and shut up. Creators are not the creators they think they are. Everyone stands on the shoulders of giants, more so than they admit, even people who repeat that phrase. Creators should work for their income like the rest of us, and not depend on restricting the freedoms of others so that they can be more comfortable. The public domain is the only domain there should be. We abolished royalty in the USA but somehow we let the scourge of royalties remain. If you don't want people to share your ideas, fine, keep them to yourself. We don't need the help of any copyright leeches. We'll do just fine without those "contributions". -Breck, via the World Wide Web and TCP/IP

fossuser 6y ago
It’s bad faith to pretend slavery is the same as a limited time monopoly to incentivize people to create things. Imagine you’re creating a new country and you want people to make things, how can you incentivize this? One way is to give people who make things a small time where they can make money from their creations, especially in cases where creating the thing requires a lot of capital investment (drug discovery). In the case of patents, you want them to share the detailed specs on their inventions with the public rather than keeping them secret. This way people are incentivized to share their inventions with the public so they get the protection. Without copyright the bigger players and distributors make all the money. The only model possible is some donation based scheme which doesn’t work for high capital investment projects. Without patents companies keep everything a trade secret. There’s a lot of stuff in the modern world that would not exist in this one and a lot of people that make their money creating things that could not do so without IP law. Is copyright law today broken? Yes. Are software patents in particular stupid? Yes. Is copyright and patent law broken from first principles or in conflict with useful incentive structure in society? No. There’s nuance and complexity here - people like to make everything simple and one sided, but it’s not: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb...
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Imagine you’re creating a new country and you want people to make things, how can you incentivize this? You could pay them? > One way is to give people who make things a small time where they can make money from their creations, especially in cases where creating the thing requires a lot of capital investment (drug discovery). Yeah, you could claim the right to put your hands on anyone who made a copy of a creation, because you want people to make stuff and penalizing anyone other than the first person to make a thing helps the original artists get paid. Of course if you wanted to incentivize creators you could also not punish them for copying other creators because the copy is another creation that you claim to want. > Without copyright the bigger players and distributors make all the money. Honestly I think its the other way around, you have to be big enough to hire a lawyer to enforce your copyright, and the bigger you are, the more / better lawyers you can get. Mickey Mouse and Disney are the ur-counterexample here. > The only model possible is some donation based scheme which doesn’t work for high capital investment projects. Without patents companies keep everything a trade secret. There’s a lot of stuff in the modern world that would not exist in this one and a lot of people that make their money creating things that could not do so without IP law. Perhaps we would be better off without all of this. > Is copyright and patent law broken from first principles or in conflict with useful incentive structure in society? No. Hard disagree. Yes it is.
- breck 6y ago
  > It’s bad faith to pretend slavery is the same as a limited time monopoly to incentivize people to create things. But copyrights and patents are a form of slavery. They are in no way, shape or form, a form of property rights. In fact, they are the exact opposite. You cannot have property rights and copyrights and patents. You get to have one or the other [0]. The only way you can reconcile the 2, is if you allow the possibility of having property rights over another person, which is by definition slavery. But moving beyond the semantic and rhetorical, who do you think benefits from patents and copyrights? People and corporations are still benefitting from copyrights from the years 1926-1965, when most African Americans were still fighting for their basic rights to vote. Do you think these laws are benefitting the descendants of slaves, or the descendants of slave owners? This is not a rhetorical question. You can do some research into who is getting the revenue from these laws and you will find an interesting distribution that resemble some earlier periods in history. There is no reason why people in poor cities should be barred from transmitting software peer to peer peacefully and instead forced via threat of violence to pay tithes to people like Bill Gates. > Imagine you’re creating a new country and you want people > to make things, how can you incentivize this? This argument is so asinine but very typical of the arguments proffered by those pushing #ImaginaryPropertyLaws. There is ZERO incentive NOT to innovate and make things. ZERO. "What's that daughter, you are hungry? Sorry I have no incentive to invent a better plough and feed you because if I were to do without patent laws then I can't stop other people from also benefitting from my idea."...."Oh Grandma, you're sick? I would try to find a cure but I have no incentive since if I were to find a cure I couldn't charge a royalty to other people who read about it." None of our most important things were built by people who gave a shit about copyright and patents and none of them ever will be. > There’s nuance and complexity here There is not. The sun does not revolve around the earth. There is no compromise ("I think we should compromise and say it revolves 70 percent around the earth"). You either decide to go with math and numbers and logic and first principles or you decide to go with whatever those in power decree. There is truth and lies. And some times the true things aren't the most well known things, and the lies get more airtime. #AbolishImaginaryProperty > Are software patents...stupid? Yes. Okay at least we agree on that. [0] https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html https://breckyunits.com/an-unpopular-phrase.html P.S. Not trying to harp on your personally, it's the industry as a whole that my anger is directed towards.