5 ms·

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 owner

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.
- sodality2 5y ago
  The difference being that the personal data should not be collected in the first place. And I don't get paid for having my data taken and sold, except in "free services"
  - antasvara 5y ago
    Agree with the first part somewhat if there's a legal issue with collecting personal data. But for the second part, we're operating under the assumption that "it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying." This necessarily implies that your personal data doesn't actually have any worth. As such, the collection of it doesn't need to be paid for. I think there has to be some distinctions for what qualifies as data with monetary worth. I don't know where exactly that line should be drawn, but I think (as you've made clear with the personal data example) that at some point data goes from an arbitrary arrangement of bits to something of value.
bcrosby95 5y ago
Funny, I kinda disagree for the same reason you state. A physical object that you "own" was created from something literally no one created. The person you bought that from had no more right to that natural resource than anyone else (except that people with guns say they do). By "owning" that natural resource they had no process in creating they are keeping it from other people that could have made other things out of it. However, ideas and digital things are not created from a limited, natural resource. Me keeping it from you is not keeping you from making your own idea or abstract thing from the same "stuff".
sokoloff 5y ago
No one is limiting people from certain bit arrangements. If you, entirely on your own, construct the exact bit arrangement that represents this video stream, you're perfectly within your rights to watch it. What copyright law prevents is for you to copy the stream of bits from the original source.
andrewzah 5y ago
"to limit people from certain bit arrangements" I don't understand how things can apparently have no restrictions just because it comes down to "digital bits". Life and the physical objects within it are "just ~~bits~~ molecules", that we re-arrange in specific ways. People spend time making things that we like and enjoy. Observing that as "certain bit arrangements" completely downplays the work and ideas that the author(s) put into it. Why does transferring that electronically instead of acoustically/visually/physically mean we throw ownership out the window? No one is forcing people to pay for musicians' or film makers' "specially arranged bits". People just feel entitled to having things for free, completely ignoring the time, effort, production costs etc that went into producing said things because the end products now are -digital-.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  You are just deliberately misunderstanding. You can argue for IP if you please but please don't pretend that IP and property share anything but an analogy. Just because information can be used to describe anything doesn't imply that physical things and ownership tags on patterns of bits that decode to tagged patterns are even remotely the same they are actually in opposition. Physical things are scarce thus we are face with the inherent choice of deciding whom has the privilege of eating a sandwich or living in a particular house. The method of distributing goods is often capricious, unfair, subject to every existing bias but at least it represents a choice we must make. We can't both eat the whole sandwich. A pattern of bits isn't a physical thing in the same class at all it is a restriction on which bits 2 parties unrelated in every fashion to the creator may transmit between each other. It's not a sandwich it is a recipe. It is granting a singular owner the privilege over say the concept of ham and cheese on white bread and demanding that people not make each other sandwiches that are identical in construction to the "owner" of that recipe under the theory that this will encourage people to develop more new and exciting sandwich types. We aren't throwing ownership out the window. In fact traditional ownership never came in the window in the first place its a mile up in orbit. What you are arguing for is an entirely different class of thing in need of its own thought process and justification. If you are going to justify it then it must necessarily be on its own terms with its own implications not by leaning overmuch on traditional property. Pretending its the same leads to many logically nonsensical things like Sony Bonos widow suggesting that copyright ought to be forever like owning a house so that the numerous and useless great great grandchildren of the creative who have nothing to offer us can tax all of creation to pay for the drugs they will probably end their pointless lives with. All of art is derivative thus endless copyright would cede all of the creative universe to the heirs of the current creative class who weren't burdened by paying tax to their predecessors. Alternatively logically nonsense like eventually all common reasonable arrangements of notes belonging to somebody. The truth is copyright was invented as a tax on society to gift to the rich and useless and only then adapted as a method to ensure publishers paid writers in an era when printing was expensive. Even now most of the money sticks to business people not creators. We would be well rid of it.

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.

sodality2 5y ago
The difference being that the personal data should not be collected in the first place. And I don't get paid for having my data taken and sold, except in "free services"
- antasvara 5y ago
  Agree with the first part somewhat if there's a legal issue with collecting personal data. But for the second part, we're operating under the assumption that "it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying." This necessarily implies that your personal data doesn't actually have any worth. As such, the collection of it doesn't need to be paid for. I think there has to be some distinctions for what qualifies as data with monetary worth. I don't know where exactly that line should be drawn, but I think (as you've made clear with the personal data example) that at some point data goes from an arbitrary arrangement of bits to something of value.

bcrosby95 5y ago

Funny, I kinda disagree for the same reason you state. A physical object that you "own" was created from something literally no one created. The person you bought that from had no more right to that natural resource than anyone else (except that people with guns say they do). By "owning" that natural resource they had no process in creating they are keeping it from other people that could have made other things out of it. However, ideas and digital things are not created from a limited, natural resource. Me keeping it from you is not keeping you from making your own idea or abstract thing from the same "stuff".

sokoloff 5y ago

No one is limiting people from certain bit arrangements. If you, entirely on your own, construct the exact bit arrangement that represents this video stream, you're perfectly within your rights to watch it. What copyright law prevents is for you to copy the stream of bits from the original source.

andrewzah 5y ago

"to limit people from certain bit arrangements" I don't understand how things can apparently have no restrictions just because it comes down to "digital bits". Life and the physical objects within it are "just ~~bits~~ molecules", that we re-arrange in specific ways. People spend time making things that we like and enjoy. Observing that as "certain bit arrangements" completely downplays the work and ideas that the author(s) put into it. Why does transferring that electronically instead of acoustically/visually/physically mean we throw ownership out the window? No one is forcing people to pay for musicians' or film makers' "specially arranged bits". People just feel entitled to having things for free, completely ignoring the time, effort, production costs etc that went into producing said things because the end products now are -digital-.

michaelmrose 5y ago
You are just deliberately misunderstanding. You can argue for IP if you please but please don't pretend that IP and property share anything but an analogy. Just because information can be used to describe anything doesn't imply that physical things and ownership tags on patterns of bits that decode to tagged patterns are even remotely the same they are actually in opposition. Physical things are scarce thus we are face with the inherent choice of deciding whom has the privilege of eating a sandwich or living in a particular house. The method of distributing goods is often capricious, unfair, subject to every existing bias but at least it represents a choice we must make. We can't both eat the whole sandwich. A pattern of bits isn't a physical thing in the same class at all it is a restriction on which bits 2 parties unrelated in every fashion to the creator may transmit between each other. It's not a sandwich it is a recipe. It is granting a singular owner the privilege over say the concept of ham and cheese on white bread and demanding that people not make each other sandwiches that are identical in construction to the "owner" of that recipe under the theory that this will encourage people to develop more new and exciting sandwich types. We aren't throwing ownership out the window. In fact traditional ownership never came in the window in the first place its a mile up in orbit. What you are arguing for is an entirely different class of thing in need of its own thought process and justification. If you are going to justify it then it must necessarily be on its own terms with its own implications not by leaning overmuch on traditional property. Pretending its the same leads to many logically nonsensical things like Sony Bonos widow suggesting that copyright ought to be forever like owning a house so that the numerous and useless great great grandchildren of the creative who have nothing to offer us can tax all of creation to pay for the drugs they will probably end their pointless lives with. All of art is derivative thus endless copyright would cede all of the creative universe to the heirs of the current creative class who weren't burdened by paying tax to their predecessors. Alternatively logically nonsense like eventually all common reasonable arrangements of notes belonging to somebody. The truth is copyright was invented as a tax on society to gift to the rich and useless and only then adapted as a method to ensure publishers paid writers in an era when printing was expensive. Even now most of the money sticks to business people not creators. We would be well rid of it.