2 ms·
Yes, because an algorithm isn't a person, and necessarily got to where it got to through what the law clearly defines as "copying," whereas what the human does
by jrm4 4y ago
Yes, because an algorithm isn't a person, and necessarily got to where it got to through what the law clearly defines as "copying," whereas what the human does is expressly not "copying."
Again, always good to remember the thing in the background: This is not a philosophical debate, it's a legal one. Intellectual property, for better or worse, is a made-up concept by humans to try to encourage more creation.
- Siira 4y agoIntellectual Property is marketed as encouragement for more creation. At this point, its primary purpose is rent-seeking, like most old institutions, I guess.
- jrm4 4y agoI mostly agree, but when I begin to game theory it out* in my own head, I still think it's something worth reforming, not abolishing. *for the internet, it would simply transfer literally all the power to the youtubes and spotifys.
- snickerbockers 4y agoI agree with you, but as long as megacorps are abusing it to protect their pseudo-monopolies, they should be held up to their own standards. Look at how pissy they get when people reverse-engineer their proprietary systems and then implement unofficial replacements.