4 ms·

The failure of one program doesn't invalidate an entire concept. Just because the Space Shuttle wasn't cost effective doesn't mean we should give up on space e

The failure of one program doesn't invalidate an entire concept. Just because the Space Shuttle wasn't cost effective doesn't mean we should give up on space exploration. Regarding people's objection to copyright, I see that largely as a circular argument. We're heading into an information-based economy with a population that doesn't seem to value intellectual property. If they can't hold it in their hand, they don't see why it's worth anything. As a software engineer, this really worries me.

swombat 15y ago
Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. As a human being living on this planet, it really worries me that some people feel that their privilege to make a buck from some information is valued more than the ability for mankind to use that information to make progress. You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). Edit: for the record, I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion, however much I might disagree with it, and I upvoted you.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. Certainly, I agree that it isn't. Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. I have to disagree with that, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Take the example of the games I have for my XBox 360. I cannot duplicate them (or will not expend the effort required, which is ultimately the same), yet they have provided me with far more entertainment than any piece of garbage I've ever come across. ;-) You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). That's an interesting concept, but I create information. The application I'm writing right now would not ever exist without me. Others may be in the same market, doing similar things, but the fact is still that I am creating a unique, intangible object out of nothing. So, it's not merely passing through my head, but rather, it's originating in my head. By the way, I agree with the parenthetical end of that sentence. If I don't distribute my software, it's never of any use to anyone (other than me). But I don't think that says anything about the difference between controlled release in exchange for money versus free replication. I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion I appreciate that, and have enjoyed this discussion.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    > In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. Here's the disconnect: many people find those rules utterly unnatural. I could dig out the famous quote about ideas not being amenable to notions of property, but I suspect you already know it. Incidentally, I tend to agree on the downvoting thing. I'd rather explain my position and engage than try to drive away people I disagree with.
  - hxa7241 15y ago
    > Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. That seems to be an anachronistic view through the eyes of a modern myth of commerce. One would expect information was shared. Proto-humans who could not or would not share information -- hence crippling co-operation -- would have been out-competed by those that did, so de-selected by evolution. What is more central to being human than language, that is, communication of information? It did not evolve by guarding it and restricting it. > we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. That is really quite distant from fact or sense. IP was created as a means of censorship and/or monopoly. And the idea that IP is somehow 'natural' is completely upside-down. Intangible/abstract objects are quite natural on their own: they have their own natural qualities distinct from material objects -- it is being freely and infinitely communicable and copyable that makes them exactly what they naturally are.
Natsu 15y ago
The problem is that you're trying to change people. People naturally resist that. I've long speculated that many otherwise-irrational behaviors have resistance to manipulation as their basis. That said, there are other ways to make money. The notion that one can do one bit of work and live off of it forever is attractive, but not necessarily good for society. You can end up with the most capable people doing nothing productive. I'm sure there are individuals where that's not the case, I'm less sure about people in general.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  The problem is that you're trying to change people Sure. But people have changed tremendously over time, right? Often, it's by focused effort (social engineering, more or less). Until around 150 years ago, slavery was legal in the US. A good chunk of the population saw absolutely nothing wrong with that. 50 years ago, significant racial discrimination was commonplace in many parts of the country, and now it's dramatically improved. I'm not saying a person should live forever off one bit of work. I'm saying that software has a very unique financial model. Also, I can't help feeling that this future of open-source, funded hacking ultimately leads toward a career which is a bit like a non-stop NPR pledge drive. :-)
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Well, take a look at how web comic Howard Taylor does business. I'll let you decide if it's a "nonstop NPR pledge drive", but the fact is that he has a copyrightable work and he's still doing good business even though he gives it away for free. Sure, people change, but they also resist manipulation. And if you look at the copyright middlemen: the RIAA, MPAA & company, you see little but. They hose the artists via exploitative contracts, Hollywood accounting and crazy royalty calculations while talking to no end about helping the artists. Every blockbuster film is a huge money-sink (on paper... the "losses" get paid to their own subsidiaries). Unless you're a rare megastar, the middlemen will screw you in those industries. You're better off doing business for yourself, and there are good ways to do that which don't involve suing grandmothers in federal court for having insecure wifi.

swombat 15y ago

Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. As a human being living on this planet, it really worries me that some people feel that their privilege to make a buck from some information is valued more than the ability for mankind to use that information to make progress. You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). Edit: for the record, I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion, however much I might disagree with it, and I upvoted you.

georgieporgie 15y ago
Perhaps the value of information to people at large (rather than specific individuals or groups of individuals) is not increased by its scarcity. Certainly, I agree that it isn't. Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. I'd argue that if you can't copy and reuse information, it's even more worthless than a piece of garbage. I have to disagree with that, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Take the example of the games I have for my XBox 360. I cannot duplicate them (or will not expend the effort required, which is ultimately the same), yet they have provided me with far more entertainment than any piece of garbage I've ever come across. ;-) You don't own information. It just happens to be passing through your head on its way to someone else's (if it's worth anything - if it stops at you, it's worthless). That's an interesting concept, but I create information. The application I'm writing right now would not ever exist without me. Others may be in the same market, doing similar things, but the fact is still that I am creating a unique, intangible object out of nothing. So, it's not merely passing through my head, but rather, it's originating in my head. By the way, I agree with the parenthetical end of that sentence. If I don't distribute my software, it's never of any use to anyone (other than me). But I don't think that says anything about the difference between controlled release in exchange for money versus free replication. I don't think you should be downvoted for your opinion I appreciate that, and have enjoyed this discussion.
- Natsu 15y ago
  > In the modern world, we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. Here's the disconnect: many people find those rules utterly unnatural. I could dig out the famous quote about ideas not being amenable to notions of property, but I suspect you already know it. Incidentally, I tend to agree on the downvoting thing. I'd rather explain my position and engage than try to drive away people I disagree with.
- hxa7241 15y ago
  > Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. That seems to be an anachronistic view through the eyes of a modern myth of commerce. One would expect information was shared. Proto-humans who could not or would not share information -- hence crippling co-operation -- would have been out-competed by those that did, so de-selected by evolution. What is more central to being human than language, that is, communication of information? It did not evolve by guarding it and restricting it. > we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. That is really quite distant from fact or sense. IP was created as a means of censorship and/or monopoly. And the idea that IP is somehow 'natural' is completely upside-down. Intangible/abstract objects are quite natural on their own: they have their own natural qualities distinct from material objects -- it is being freely and infinitely communicable and copyable that makes them exactly what they naturally are.

Natsu 15y ago

The problem is that you're trying to change people. People naturally resist that. I've long speculated that many otherwise-irrational behaviors have resistance to manipulation as their basis. That said, there are other ways to make money. The notion that one can do one bit of work and live off of it forever is attractive, but not necessarily good for society. You can end up with the most capable people doing nothing productive. I'm sure there are individuals where that's not the case, I'm less sure about people in general.

georgieporgie 15y ago
The problem is that you're trying to change people Sure. But people have changed tremendously over time, right? Often, it's by focused effort (social engineering, more or less). Until around 150 years ago, slavery was legal in the US. A good chunk of the population saw absolutely nothing wrong with that. 50 years ago, significant racial discrimination was commonplace in many parts of the country, and now it's dramatically improved. I'm not saying a person should live forever off one bit of work. I'm saying that software has a very unique financial model. Also, I can't help feeling that this future of open-source, funded hacking ultimately leads toward a career which is a bit like a non-stop NPR pledge drive. :-)
- Natsu 15y ago
  Well, take a look at how web comic Howard Taylor does business. I'll let you decide if it's a "nonstop NPR pledge drive", but the fact is that he has a copyrightable work and he's still doing good business even though he gives it away for free. Sure, people change, but they also resist manipulation. And if you look at the copyright middlemen: the RIAA, MPAA & company, you see little but. They hose the artists via exploitative contracts, Hollywood accounting and crazy royalty calculations while talking to no end about helping the artists. Every blockbuster film is a huge money-sink (on paper... the "losses" get paid to their own subsidiaries). Unless you're a rare megastar, the middlemen will screw you in those industries. You're better off doing business for yourself, and there are good ways to do that which don't involve suing grandmothers in federal court for having insecure wifi.