8 ms·

For a whole 30 seconds of fight action?

by siruncledrew 5y ago

fortran77 5y ago
Don't people have a right to their property?
- ReptileMan 5y ago
  I don't consider ip property. So the answer is it's complicated.
  - Guffton 5y ago
    > I don't consider ip property Wait, what?
    - ReptileMan 5y ago
      Well one of the defining characteristics of property is that there is finite amounts of it. But we have inexhaustible supplies of 0s and 1s, and words.
      - JohnWhigham 5y ago
        It'd be nice if we could have a happy medium it's like we can only live in extremes. On one end, we have the US, the land of patent trolls and divisions of companies suing other divisions of companies for millions and wasting years of time. On the other end, we have China where people just blatantly steal everything. Released a new successful product on Amazon? Get ready to be undercut by 50% or more by some no-name brand out of nowhere!
  - gamblor956 5y ago
    "ip" = "intellectual property". It's literally in the name. Property isn't defined by quantity or finiteness. It's anything, real or otherwise, for which ownership consists of a set of rights to control the exploitation (aka "use") of the thing.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      The name is in short shit. If I decide to call cars electric horses they still wont require breeding, pastures, or feed and will will need mechanics, gas, and pavement under the wheels.
- tracedddd 5y ago
  I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.
  - drknownuffin 5y ago
    But it really isn't limitless, is it? We can abstract it into a 'bit arrangement', but that arrangement didn't emerge from entropy independently - someone invested time, effort, and other scarce resources to arrange those bits in a valuable, non-random configuration. The person copying clearly values that arrangement, or they wouldn't be copying it.
    - tracedddd 5y ago
      Perhaps they did invest time, but I’m not convinced that should give them the right to place a restriction on others. If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? Have I really harmed this person or stolen from them in any meaningful sense? If I then delete the data, is that really justice? Both directions lead to some laws that seem wrong at face value - illegal primes on one side and “pro” revenge porn on the other. I only argue it’s not as clear cut as physical property, and that we are probably too far on the digital copyright side, rather than the data is free side.
      - david422 5y ago
        > If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? But if it wasn't worth something, you wouldn't do it. So the person that created it wants a certain value, and the person copying it wants to copy it but doesn't want to pay that value.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless. I invite you to apply this logic to your personal data.
- djbebs 5y ago
  Givernment granted monopolies are not property.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    Uh... they aren't? They can be bought and sold. A company is a government-granted monopoly on the resources of that company, including its contracts with employees and contracts for services. You can buy and sell that company. Originally, all corporations were government-granted charters, and a lot of that notion is retained. Government manages your monopoly over your real estate -- if somebody tries to use it you're not left to your own devices to defend it. In a sense all property is a government-granted monopoly, including intangible rights. Intellectual property is a special case and you can argue that it shouldn't be included, but to dismiss government grants in the role of property seems to miss a lot about how the law works.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      They aren't analogous to physical property. They can trivially be disposed of without any effect on the functioning of physical property. At best they require their own justification.
      - astrange 5y ago
        Physical property is a government-granted right, with the caveat that if they stop enforcing it you can do that yourself with violence. If you stop paying property tax you will eventually lose your property.
        michaelmrose 5y ago
        Its a government granted resolution to something that absolutely must be resolved one way or the other. We can't both eat the sandwich. IP is a different class of imposition.
- Mordisquitos 5y ago
  Were the owners of this 30 second video arbitrarily deprived of it?
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Indeed they do. For example my hard drive belongs to me and yours to you. There is no way I can arrange the pattern of magnetic ones and zeros such that it magically becomes YOUR property in any way that any proponent of traditional property would understand. That is to say imaginary property is a set of restrictions on how I am allowed to use my actual property. This restriction is supposed to be justified by society benefiting from the useful arts and sciences. I don't see a two-bit fight fitting that bill.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - fortran77 5y ago
    You don't like fighting! Good for you! (Neither do I.) I'm sure a person like you has much more important things to pay attention to. So people like you and me don't pay money to watch fighting. So far we agree. But we differ here: I think it's fine of _other_ people pay money to watch fighting. And I think if someone produces a fighting program, he has the right to try to make some money from it.
    - andrewzah 5y ago
      People conveniently like to ignore the costs (time, money, social capital, etc) it requires to even put on boxing or fighting events. Or to make music or films. It is particularly vexing for me to see all of this creative, hard work flippantly thrown aside because people suddenly become philosophers about bits and rearranging them. If one doesn't like that people charge $$ to watch boxing fights... Then don't watch them! People are not entitled to having things for free because it's "theoretically possible to re-arrange my hard drive's bits in that exact manner". edit; changed you->one to clarify I was speaking generally and not about the parent commenter specifically
      - fortran77 5y ago
        You and I agree. But the "gatekeepers" on Hacker News believe that if something's not "hip" enough for them, it has no value and nobody should be enjoying it.
rafale 5y ago
The fight felt like a scam. I wouldn't be surprised if Askren heavily bet against himself after hyping himself and presenting the fight as an easy win.
- xkjkls 5y ago
  Askren isn't that type of dude. Not to mention the massive illegality of betting against yourself in a sanctioned boxing match, it would be incredibly dishonest and against his normal personality.
Taylor_OD 5y ago
The slap fight was more entertaining than any of the boxing matches.

For a whole 30 seconds of fight action?

fortran77 5y ago

Don't people have a right to their property?

ReptileMan 5y ago
I don't consider ip property. So the answer is it's complicated.
- Guffton 5y ago
  > I don't consider ip property Wait, what?
  - ReptileMan 5y ago
    Well one of the defining characteristics of property is that there is finite amounts of it. But we have inexhaustible supplies of 0s and 1s, and words.
    - JohnWhigham 5y ago
      It'd be nice if we could have a happy medium it's like we can only live in extremes. On one end, we have the US, the land of patent trolls and divisions of companies suing other divisions of companies for millions and wasting years of time. On the other end, we have China where people just blatantly steal everything. Released a new successful product on Amazon? Get ready to be undercut by 50% or more by some no-name brand out of nowhere!
- gamblor956 5y ago
  "ip" = "intellectual property". It's literally in the name. Property isn't defined by quantity or finiteness. It's anything, real or otherwise, for which ownership consists of a set of rights to control the exploitation (aka "use") of the thing.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    The name is in short shit. If I decide to call cars electric horses they still wont require breeding, pastures, or feed and will will need mechanics, gas, and pavement under the wheels.
tracedddd 5y ago
I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.
- drknownuffin 5y ago
  But it really isn't limitless, is it? We can abstract it into a 'bit arrangement', but that arrangement didn't emerge from entropy independently - someone invested time, effort, and other scarce resources to arrange those bits in a valuable, non-random configuration. The person copying clearly values that arrangement, or they wouldn't be copying it.
  - tracedddd 5y ago
    Perhaps they did invest time, but I’m not convinced that should give them the right to place a restriction on others. If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? Have I really harmed this person or stolen from them in any meaningful sense? If I then delete the data, is that really justice? Both directions lead to some laws that seem wrong at face value - illegal primes on one side and “pro” revenge porn on the other. I only argue it’s not as clear cut as physical property, and that we are probably too far on the digital copyright side, rather than the data is free side.
    - david422 5y ago
      > If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? But if it wasn't worth something, you wouldn't do it. So the person that created it wants a certain value, and the person copying it wants to copy it but doesn't want to pay that value.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  > Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless. I invite you to apply this logic to your personal data.
djbebs 5y ago
Givernment granted monopolies are not property.
- jfengel 5y ago
  Uh... they aren't? They can be bought and sold. A company is a government-granted monopoly on the resources of that company, including its contracts with employees and contracts for services. You can buy and sell that company. Originally, all corporations were government-granted charters, and a lot of that notion is retained. Government manages your monopoly over your real estate -- if somebody tries to use it you're not left to your own devices to defend it. In a sense all property is a government-granted monopoly, including intangible rights. Intellectual property is a special case and you can argue that it shouldn't be included, but to dismiss government grants in the role of property seems to miss a lot about how the law works.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    They aren't analogous to physical property. They can trivially be disposed of without any effect on the functioning of physical property. At best they require their own justification.
    - astrange 5y ago
      Physical property is a government-granted right, with the caveat that if they stop enforcing it you can do that yourself with violence. If you stop paying property tax you will eventually lose your property.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        Its a government granted resolution to something that absolutely must be resolved one way or the other. We can't both eat the sandwich. IP is a different class of imposition.
Mordisquitos 5y ago
Were the owners of this 30 second video arbitrarily deprived of it?
michaelmrose 5y ago
Indeed they do. For example my hard drive belongs to me and yours to you. There is no way I can arrange the pattern of magnetic ones and zeros such that it magically becomes YOUR property in any way that any proponent of traditional property would understand. That is to say imaginary property is a set of restrictions on how I am allowed to use my actual property. This restriction is supposed to be justified by society benefiting from the useful arts and sciences. I don't see a two-bit fight fitting that bill.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fortran77 5y ago
  You don't like fighting! Good for you! (Neither do I.) I'm sure a person like you has much more important things to pay attention to. So people like you and me don't pay money to watch fighting. So far we agree. But we differ here: I think it's fine of _other_ people pay money to watch fighting. And I think if someone produces a fighting program, he has the right to try to make some money from it.
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    People conveniently like to ignore the costs (time, money, social capital, etc) it requires to even put on boxing or fighting events. Or to make music or films. It is particularly vexing for me to see all of this creative, hard work flippantly thrown aside because people suddenly become philosophers about bits and rearranging them. If one doesn't like that people charge $$ to watch boxing fights... Then don't watch them! People are not entitled to having things for free because it's "theoretically possible to re-arrange my hard drive's bits in that exact manner". edit; changed you->one to clarify I was speaking generally and not about the parent commenter specifically
    - fortran77 5y ago
      You and I agree. But the "gatekeepers" on Hacker News believe that if something's not "hip" enough for them, it has no value and nobody should be enjoying it.

rafale 5y ago

The fight felt like a scam. I wouldn't be surprised if Askren heavily bet against himself after hyping himself and presenting the fight as an easy win.

xkjkls 5y ago
Askren isn't that type of dude. Not to mention the massive illegality of betting against yourself in a sanctioned boxing match, it would be incredibly dishonest and against his normal personality.

Taylor_OD 5y ago

The slap fight was more entertaining than any of the boxing matches.