3 ms·

Your argument broken down goes like this: "If you can't touch it, it isn't natural, therefore disregard it" First of all, what is "natural" or not does not mat

by Meai 15y ago

Your argument broken down goes like this: "If you can't touch it, it isn't natural, therefore disregard it" First of all, what is "natural" or not does not matter. What nature does should not be measure to what we do. I see no reason for that, just because 'nature' has a positive connotation nowadays, doesn't make it a logical end to strive for. "Natural" is a contrived word, and to further elaborate on this completely nonsense word and draw consequences like say "it's invalid" or "it's wrong" because of a self-proclaimed lack of the attribute you call natural, is even more so not understandable. If I may provoke a comparison, you argue with the mind of the so called 'pro-life' proponents. That is a very simplistic view of the world. Just because my idea (=photo e.g) isn't immediately transferable to physical properties, doesn't mean it's any less "real" or "natural". If I tell a guy my idea, and he implements it trivially with huge profit, then the loss is very real to me. Your naive views translate very well into the last sentence: "the picture taken by the monkey just is". You don't appear to have any will to solve the issue at hand. That's like giving up to solve the problem at all.

dhume 15y ago
Your argument broken down goes like this: "If you can't touch it, it isn't natural, therefore disregard it" It's more of an acknowledgment that our concept of ownership is derived from the scarcity of the objects we may own. Whether the thing over which someone claims ownership is natural doesn't enter into it. You don't appear to have any will to solve the issue at hand. I don't think GP is convinced there is a genuine issue at hand.
hxa7241 15y ago
It is not about 'nature' as some mystical attribute. It is about the basic physical limitations of reality. The restrictions instituted by normal property are grounded in the actual restrictions of physical reality. The restrictions instituted by 'intellectual property' have no such grounding. > If I tell a guy my idea, and he implements it trivially with huge profit, then the loss is very real to me. It is not real at all, and it justifies nothing. If something is physically taken from you, you lose it -- whether there is any law or not. If someone else makes money, you lose nothing -- the idea of loss you present is entirely dependent on assuming there is a law supporting it. A law cannot be justified by itself; that is circular.
- Meai 15y ago
  See, again you are using a definition of real that suits you. This doesn't mean it's correct or even that it makes sense. What your argument boils down to is: "Thoughts are not real". Is that a really a stand that you want to take? edit: Maybe I should give you an abundantly clear example of how your interpretation of reality is wrong: Imagine two businessmen come to you with the same idea, but you can only give one of them funding. Did the other man lose anything tangible? No, all that money was never real by your definition. For him it was hypothetical money. But no one in their right minds would argue that the second man didn't lose anything. The same way software pirates argue: "We aren't taking away anything. There was never any real money to begin with." That may be, but they lost the opportunity to make money which is just as real.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    You're chasing your own semantic tail here. The point that the parents are making is that copyright is an artificial subjugation of immaterial goods to behaviors and laws that naturally apply only to material goods. Ideas and expressions, by nature, entertain no notion of scarcity. Copyright is an attempt to artificially introduce scarcity and grant control to the newly rarefied goods. This process is, by nature, fraught with contrivance, and thus prone to abuse and ludicrous corner cases, such as the case where a monkey steals a guy's camera, and the guy then claims ownership of the monkey's work.
nate_meurer 15y ago
The word "natural" in English has more meaning than just "part of Nature" in the common sense. The OP is using the word to refer to properties common to material objects, as opposed to immaterial things such as ideas and expressions. And exactly what issue is it that demands a resolution here? The problem was manufactured by a guy who wants exclusive ownership to a picture taken by a monkey. Perhaps the real problem is our assumption that every expression must be copyrighted automatically.
- Meai 15y ago
  Well the problem that needs to be solved is obviously copyright law, as does the article indicate too. It couldn't be clearer that people are not happy with the current status quo, for example regarding redistribution of digital goods. How we as a society are going to handle that is not a solved issue. I felt the need to point out, that simply stating "copyright is in itself unnatural, let's just not think about it or drop it" is preposterous and uses an arbitrary definition of "natural" and furthermore draws arbitrary conclusions on that definition. (natural = good) We clearly need to have some kind of protection of ideas, because they clearly have value. But mostly because people themselves value them.

by Meai 15y ago

dhume 15y ago

Your argument broken down goes like this: "If you can't touch it, it isn't natural, therefore disregard it" It's more of an acknowledgment that our concept of ownership is derived from the scarcity of the objects we may own. Whether the thing over which someone claims ownership is natural doesn't enter into it. You don't appear to have any will to solve the issue at hand. I don't think GP is convinced there is a genuine issue at hand.

hxa7241 15y ago

It is not about 'nature' as some mystical attribute. It is about the basic physical limitations of reality. The restrictions instituted by normal property are grounded in the actual restrictions of physical reality. The restrictions instituted by 'intellectual property' have no such grounding. > If I tell a guy my idea, and he implements it trivially with huge profit, then the loss is very real to me. It is not real at all, and it justifies nothing. If something is physically taken from you, you lose it -- whether there is any law or not. If someone else makes money, you lose nothing -- the idea of loss you present is entirely dependent on assuming there is a law supporting it. A law cannot be justified by itself; that is circular.

Meai 15y ago
See, again you are using a definition of real that suits you. This doesn't mean it's correct or even that it makes sense. What your argument boils down to is: "Thoughts are not real". Is that a really a stand that you want to take? edit: Maybe I should give you an abundantly clear example of how your interpretation of reality is wrong: Imagine two businessmen come to you with the same idea, but you can only give one of them funding. Did the other man lose anything tangible? No, all that money was never real by your definition. For him it was hypothetical money. But no one in their right minds would argue that the second man didn't lose anything. The same way software pirates argue: "We aren't taking away anything. There was never any real money to begin with." That may be, but they lost the opportunity to make money which is just as real.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  You're chasing your own semantic tail here. The point that the parents are making is that copyright is an artificial subjugation of immaterial goods to behaviors and laws that naturally apply only to material goods. Ideas and expressions, by nature, entertain no notion of scarcity. Copyright is an attempt to artificially introduce scarcity and grant control to the newly rarefied goods. This process is, by nature, fraught with contrivance, and thus prone to abuse and ludicrous corner cases, such as the case where a monkey steals a guy's camera, and the guy then claims ownership of the monkey's work.

nate_meurer 15y ago

The word "natural" in English has more meaning than just "part of Nature" in the common sense. The OP is using the word to refer to properties common to material objects, as opposed to immaterial things such as ideas and expressions. And exactly what issue is it that demands a resolution here? The problem was manufactured by a guy who wants exclusive ownership to a picture taken by a monkey. Perhaps the real problem is our assumption that every expression must be copyrighted automatically.

Meai 15y ago
Well the problem that needs to be solved is obviously copyright law, as does the article indicate too. It couldn't be clearer that people are not happy with the current status quo, for example regarding redistribution of digital goods. How we as a society are going to handle that is not a solved issue. I felt the need to point out, that simply stating "copyright is in itself unnatural, let's just not think about it or drop it" is preposterous and uses an arbitrary definition of "natural" and furthermore draws arbitrary conclusions on that definition. (natural = good) We clearly need to have some kind of protection of ideas, because they clearly have value. But mostly because people themselves value them.