5 ms·

With regard to point 1, the creator should be defined as the entity that paid for the creation to come into existence, not the engineer / tools that were used t

With regard to point 1, the creator should be defined as the entity that paid for the creation to come into existence, not the engineer / tools that were used to create it. With regard to "Most creative work right now is paid for at production". This is clearly false and almost all creative work is created speculatively, with the hope that it can be made profitable through future sales. All video games, all music, all television, all movies. The only creative works I know of that are paid for at or before production are things on Kickstarter or those lucky enough to win grants or those with wealthy patrons.

avz 5y ago
> the creator should be defined as the entity that paid... No. The existing definition of "creator" as the person who did the creating is perfectly fine. Various supporters, such as those who provided the creator with lodging, food, salary or other provisions are themselves not the creator. If you pay an engineer to create a psidget, you haven't created anything. The engineer did. You simply exchanged your money for the engineer's creation. This is similar to how paying a farmer for their crops does not turn you into a farmer. > not the engineer / tools that were used to create Do not conflate people and tools.
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  Farmers plant crops to sell speculatively in a market. Paying a farmer for the crops makes you a customer. If you own some land and decide to grow carrots and then pay somebody to plant the seeds and harvest the crop, you are absolutely a farmer. (You might do other things, but that doesn't make you any less of a farmer) If you have an idea for a widget, and think there might be a market for it, describe what it should do and what it should look like, then pay an engineer to work out the details and pay them, you are undeniably the creator of the widget. If Netflix decides they want a show that appeals to 10 year old kids who are into pokemon and video games, then pays people to go work up some concepts, then evaluates the concepts, and green lights the project, then gathers together a team of experts to make it, then there is no question Netflix created the show. People can be used as tools. It's ridiculous to suggest anything else.
  - advael 5y ago
    Yes. Under the current laws, people can be used as tools for pay. Also, without intellectual property, people could be used as tools in the same way. But under the current laws, people can be used as tools to produce something that might prevent them from plying the same skills in the future, if their practices get captured as IP. I do not support laws that tip the balance of power further in favor of extracting value from labor, as this is already the way the power dynamic naturally goes and if we need laws to intervene, it is decidedly in the other direction
    - jay_kyburz 5y ago
      The problem with our intellectual property laws are not who owns what. (as you suggest in some places). The problems are with our implementation. (as you have hinted at, but not clearly articulated) Patents are being granted for trivial things, and the courts are to big and too expensive for individuals to be able to exercise the rights they already have. All people should have equal power under the law (regardless of wealth), whether its an intellectual property dispute, a malpractice lawsuit, or some development application.
      - advael 5y ago
        There are several problems with both the implementation and the principles underlying intellectual property laws, some of which pertain to who owns what, many of which pertain to how ideas can be separated out from each other, still yet more pertain to abusable mechanisms for the acquisition of intellectual property that subverts its ostensible purpose, and a whole category of issues that pertain to the special legal powers we seem to be willing to grant private corporations (Such as installing a rootkit on your personal computer) because we prioritize its protection. A few of the big problems do have to do with the general cost of litigation, which is a separate problem but like most things makes this worse
  - LocalH 5y ago
    >People can be used as tools. It's ridiculous to suggest anything else. This is a dehumanizing viewpoint.
advael 5y ago
That's totally nonsensical. Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. For "things" where there's an actual good being produced, this makes perfect sense under property rights. We do not need a concept of intellectual property for this to be how it works, and adding that nonsensical concept wherein "ideas" can abstractly themselves be property only serves to further empower capital to form monopolies backed by the government in this context. The most coherent arguments I've heard for intellectual property view the value of this unnatural "ideas as property" construct as a way for small creators to have some means of subverting this dynamic, but it fails to do that. The idea that creative work is produced "speculatively" rather than "at production" is using your ridiculous prior stated assumption that the entity that pays for the production becomes the "creator" of the work. I've already explained why that's insane. This speculative model of content production is a business model that's emerged in the context of extant laws, not an inevitable necessity of production. It is only possible for very entrenched entities with a lot of starting capital that can afford to take risks in this way, and I don't think it's valuable to protect this business model with criminal law
- eropple 5y ago
  > It is only possible for very entrenched entities with a lot of starting capital that can afford to take risks in this way Or the author of a book.
  - advael 5y ago
    Perhaps, if said author is able to produce the whole book such that it can be copyrighted, find a way to publish it independently, and defend their copyright if a publisher likes the idea and gets something similar enough to not quite be considered the same thing ghostwritten. This may occasionally be feasible, although it does require considerable capital or the help of someone else who has it. At the end of the day, right now getting a good deal out of IP still requires finding someone to work with you that you can trust, or having a lot of money to start out with
- jay_kyburz 5y ago
  >Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. Its not the capital that gives companies ownership of its creation, its the "will made manifest" by wielding said capital. The company wants the creation to exist, then the manipulates the world around it so that the thing comes into existence. You talk of companies as if they are not also people. Companies are collections of people.
AlbertCory 5y ago
This is one case where patent law has the idea more or less right, even if the implementation is nonsense for software: The person who had the concept of the invention is the inventor. Not the employer who paid him/her, nor the lab assistants who experimented until they got the concept to work.

avz 5y ago

> the creator should be defined as the entity that paid... No. The existing definition of "creator" as the person who did the creating is perfectly fine. Various supporters, such as those who provided the creator with lodging, food, salary or other provisions are themselves not the creator. If you pay an engineer to create a psidget, you haven't created anything. The engineer did. You simply exchanged your money for the engineer's creation. This is similar to how paying a farmer for their crops does not turn you into a farmer. > not the engineer / tools that were used to create Do not conflate people and tools.

jay_kyburz 5y ago
Farmers plant crops to sell speculatively in a market. Paying a farmer for the crops makes you a customer. If you own some land and decide to grow carrots and then pay somebody to plant the seeds and harvest the crop, you are absolutely a farmer. (You might do other things, but that doesn't make you any less of a farmer) If you have an idea for a widget, and think there might be a market for it, describe what it should do and what it should look like, then pay an engineer to work out the details and pay them, you are undeniably the creator of the widget. If Netflix decides they want a show that appeals to 10 year old kids who are into pokemon and video games, then pays people to go work up some concepts, then evaluates the concepts, and green lights the project, then gathers together a team of experts to make it, then there is no question Netflix created the show. People can be used as tools. It's ridiculous to suggest anything else.
- advael 5y ago
  Yes. Under the current laws, people can be used as tools for pay. Also, without intellectual property, people could be used as tools in the same way. But under the current laws, people can be used as tools to produce something that might prevent them from plying the same skills in the future, if their practices get captured as IP. I do not support laws that tip the balance of power further in favor of extracting value from labor, as this is already the way the power dynamic naturally goes and if we need laws to intervene, it is decidedly in the other direction
  - jay_kyburz 5y ago
    The problem with our intellectual property laws are not who owns what. (as you suggest in some places). The problems are with our implementation. (as you have hinted at, but not clearly articulated) Patents are being granted for trivial things, and the courts are to big and too expensive for individuals to be able to exercise the rights they already have. All people should have equal power under the law (regardless of wealth), whether its an intellectual property dispute, a malpractice lawsuit, or some development application.
    - advael 5y ago
      There are several problems with both the implementation and the principles underlying intellectual property laws, some of which pertain to who owns what, many of which pertain to how ideas can be separated out from each other, still yet more pertain to abusable mechanisms for the acquisition of intellectual property that subverts its ostensible purpose, and a whole category of issues that pertain to the special legal powers we seem to be willing to grant private corporations (Such as installing a rootkit on your personal computer) because we prioritize its protection. A few of the big problems do have to do with the general cost of litigation, which is a separate problem but like most things makes this worse
- LocalH 5y ago
  >People can be used as tools. It's ridiculous to suggest anything else. This is a dehumanizing viewpoint.

advael 5y ago

That's totally nonsensical. Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. For "things" where there's an actual good being produced, this makes perfect sense under property rights. We do not need a concept of intellectual property for this to be how it works, and adding that nonsensical concept wherein "ideas" can abstractly themselves be property only serves to further empower capital to form monopolies backed by the government in this context. The most coherent arguments I've heard for intellectual property view the value of this unnatural "ideas as property" construct as a way for small creators to have some means of subverting this dynamic, but it fails to do that. The idea that creative work is produced "speculatively" rather than "at production" is using your ridiculous prior stated assumption that the entity that pays for the production becomes the "creator" of the work. I've already explained why that's insane. This speculative model of content production is a business model that's emerged in the context of extant laws, not an inevitable necessity of production. It is only possible for very entrenched entities with a lot of starting capital that can afford to take risks in this way, and I don't think it's valuable to protect this business model with criminal law

eropple 5y ago
> It is only possible for very entrenched entities with a lot of starting capital that can afford to take risks in this way Or the author of a book.
- advael 5y ago
  Perhaps, if said author is able to produce the whole book such that it can be copyrighted, find a way to publish it independently, and defend their copyright if a publisher likes the idea and gets something similar enough to not quite be considered the same thing ghostwritten. This may occasionally be feasible, although it does require considerable capital or the help of someone else who has it. At the end of the day, right now getting a good deal out of IP still requires finding someone to work with you that you can trust, or having a lot of money to start out with
jay_kyburz 5y ago
>Yes, capital pays for labor to produce a thing, and then owns the thing. Its not the capital that gives companies ownership of its creation, its the "will made manifest" by wielding said capital. The company wants the creation to exist, then the manipulates the world around it so that the thing comes into existence. You talk of companies as if they are not also people. Companies are collections of people.

AlbertCory 5y ago

This is one case where patent law has the idea more or less right, even if the implementation is nonsense for software: The person who had the concept of the invention is the inventor. Not the employer who paid him/her, nor the lab assistants who experimented until they got the concept to work.