5 ms·

I have always thought that the fundamental toxic conceit of "Intellectual Property" lies in an obscure fear. And I think this case supports that. To be clear,

I have always thought that the fundamental toxic conceit of "Intellectual Property" lies in an obscure fear. And I think this case supports that. To be clear, I'm not touching on legal or economic arguments about payment, rights, control or attribution. These may or may not address the many injustices facing creative people. In the deeper spiritual conversation about ownership and acts of thought, is the spectre of fear; that one has passed one's creative peak. That you'll never make anything as good as that again. From that fear comes the rejection of creativity as an inexhaustible living process, and the urge to commodify, to cast the past in stone and build a fence around it. This case, which is more formally about 'derivative works', is about stopping an art-form from living. For me the antidote to that whole control pathology lies in Kahlil Gibran's "On Children": You are the bows from which your children (creations) as living arrows are sent forth. Real creators have the courage to let go.

johtso 4y ago
I wonder how much of this kneejerk reaction can be rooted back to being taught in school that copying is bad. If someone's copying me, they didn't have to do the hard work I did, and therefor it's immoral, even if it doesn't cause any loss for me.
- bluecalm 4y ago
  Well the loss you mention is not the only argument. The argument is about future incentives. If anyone is free to copy and fully use my work I will not do some of the work. It's about where the bar is. Most people agree copying someone's else novel and selling it is wrong. Copying parts of it that went into popular culture? Making variations on some characters? Those are more interesting. We just need to find some reasonable rules to balance various incentives.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > If anyone is free to copy and fully use my work I will not do some of the work. Why? Please read me carefully: I am not accusing you of resentment. But I already excluded issues of finance and recognition in my conditions above. So, other than spitefulness and resentment, what else might possess us to declare that if "anyone is free to copy and fully use" some work, then it's not worth doing? Do you not feel the incredible plenitude and abundance of creativity that urges you toward generosity? Is capitalism responsible for somehow poisoning us with the idea that scarcity is necessary for valuable endeavour?
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      > But I already excluded issues of finance and recognition in my conditions above. Finance is pretty important though, if you want to feed and shelter yourself and your family. Most other types of work cannot be made worthless by others seeing it and copying it. But the work of researching and thinking and producing a solution can, so the government figured there should be a way to recoup costs and provide incentive.
    - bluecalm 4y ago
      It's not about resentment. It's about reward. Unless you're in a very privileged position you need to make money from your work or you won't be about to continue doing it. If you have done great work you hope to be rewarded for it and that includes financials. I want to live in a world where people who do awesome work are awesomely rewarded for it. I don't get what you're about with the scarcity argument. Everyone is free to write a novel or create software or whatever. I just want people who do the work to be in position to profit from it not someone who didn't do the work
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
        But I'm telling you, for the third time now, that money is excluded from the argument I am making. Yet you keep dragging it back to the same spot again. Are you entrenched in that you are not able to see the world in any other way than through money? Yes, money is important. Now, can you forget that? Put it aside and try to move on to a higher level of thought? ("No" is a perfectly acceptable answer that would satisfy my genuine curiosity)
        dotnet00 4y ago
        The point he's making is that you can't just say "money is excluded from the argument I'm making" and still be anywhere relevant to reality. People dislike copying because for most people it's an attack on their income, either by taking their recognition (eg copying "free" images from a photographer) or by actually taking their income (eg copying paid art). If you exclude financial arguments you exclude the vast majority of people who share their work. To bring this around to code, most popular licenses allow copying someone's code with proper attribution, so clearly copying is okay as long as you don't take recognition from a work that isn't profit motivated.
- squeaky-clean 4y ago
  It does cause loss for you. How many hours you spent on that original work have been wasted. You could have just spent 10 minutes copying someone else. To the downvoter, please do some free contract work for me. It causes you no loss.
egypturnash 4y ago
Hi. I’m an artist. I have spent most of my life practicing my craft. I think that until we have abandoned the concept of “working for a living”, this line of thought is a bunch of wankery. If I create something that people are willing to keep buying for decades without any more work on my part, then I have a nice source of recurring, passive income that I am very motivated to defend by stopping anyone else from profiting off of it. I am also a human being who needs to do things like take a break from working now and then so I don’t burn out. And explore new avenues of expression without worrying about spending a while making stuff that’s not good enough to get paid for. And work on big, weird projects. Having something that keeps selling without me putting in any work is great for all of those things. The fundamental toxicity here is that we live in a capitalist hellscape, not that artists would like to use their skills to get by in said hellscape.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Would you prefer a communist hellscape where you only get paid if the Commissariat of Art likes it, or a monarchist hellscape where you only get paid if the Duke of Something is your patreon?
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    Or, as a thought experiment, some sort of UBI so that artists can follow their muse without having to find buyers for their work.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      Would you gladly slave away for the rest of your life so artists and random layabouts can “follow their muse”?
      - gus_massa 4y ago
        I don't mind money for artist, but the problems are wannabe morons that can't draw a circle with the bottom of a bottle. I don't mind money for scientists, but the problems are wannabe morons that try to prove the Earth is flat. You can continue the list... The hard problem is a better method for resource allocation.

johtso 4y ago

I wonder how much of this kneejerk reaction can be rooted back to being taught in school that copying is bad. If someone's copying me, they didn't have to do the hard work I did, and therefor it's immoral, even if it doesn't cause any loss for me.

bluecalm 4y ago
Well the loss you mention is not the only argument. The argument is about future incentives. If anyone is free to copy and fully use my work I will not do some of the work. It's about where the bar is. Most people agree copying someone's else novel and selling it is wrong. Copying parts of it that went into popular culture? Making variations on some characters? Those are more interesting. We just need to find some reasonable rules to balance various incentives.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > If anyone is free to copy and fully use my work I will not do some of the work. Why? Please read me carefully: I am not accusing you of resentment. But I already excluded issues of finance and recognition in my conditions above. So, other than spitefulness and resentment, what else might possess us to declare that if "anyone is free to copy and fully use" some work, then it's not worth doing? Do you not feel the incredible plenitude and abundance of creativity that urges you toward generosity? Is capitalism responsible for somehow poisoning us with the idea that scarcity is necessary for valuable endeavour?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > But I already excluded issues of finance and recognition in my conditions above. Finance is pretty important though, if you want to feed and shelter yourself and your family. Most other types of work cannot be made worthless by others seeing it and copying it. But the work of researching and thinking and producing a solution can, so the government figured there should be a way to recoup costs and provide incentive.
  - bluecalm 4y ago
    It's not about resentment. It's about reward. Unless you're in a very privileged position you need to make money from your work or you won't be about to continue doing it. If you have done great work you hope to be rewarded for it and that includes financials. I want to live in a world where people who do awesome work are awesomely rewarded for it. I don't get what you're about with the scarcity argument. Everyone is free to write a novel or create software or whatever. I just want people who do the work to be in position to profit from it not someone who didn't do the work
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      But I'm telling you, for the third time now, that money is excluded from the argument I am making. Yet you keep dragging it back to the same spot again. Are you entrenched in that you are not able to see the world in any other way than through money? Yes, money is important. Now, can you forget that? Put it aside and try to move on to a higher level of thought? ("No" is a perfectly acceptable answer that would satisfy my genuine curiosity)
      - dotnet00 4y ago
        The point he's making is that you can't just say "money is excluded from the argument I'm making" and still be anywhere relevant to reality. People dislike copying because for most people it's an attack on their income, either by taking their recognition (eg copying "free" images from a photographer) or by actually taking their income (eg copying paid art). If you exclude financial arguments you exclude the vast majority of people who share their work. To bring this around to code, most popular licenses allow copying someone's code with proper attribution, so clearly copying is okay as long as you don't take recognition from a work that isn't profit motivated.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
It does cause loss for you. How many hours you spent on that original work have been wasted. You could have just spent 10 minutes copying someone else. To the downvoter, please do some free contract work for me. It causes you no loss.

egypturnash 4y ago

Hi. I’m an artist. I have spent most of my life practicing my craft. I think that until we have abandoned the concept of “working for a living”, this line of thought is a bunch of wankery. If I create something that people are willing to keep buying for decades without any more work on my part, then I have a nice source of recurring, passive income that I am very motivated to defend by stopping anyone else from profiting off of it. I am also a human being who needs to do things like take a break from working now and then so I don’t burn out. And explore new avenues of expression without worrying about spending a while making stuff that’s not good enough to get paid for. And work on big, weird projects. Having something that keeps selling without me putting in any work is great for all of those things. The fundamental toxicity here is that we live in a capitalist hellscape, not that artists would like to use their skills to get by in said hellscape.

gus_massa 4y ago
Would you prefer a communist hellscape where you only get paid if the Commissariat of Art likes it, or a monarchist hellscape where you only get paid if the Duke of Something is your patreon?
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  Or, as a thought experiment, some sort of UBI so that artists can follow their muse without having to find buyers for their work.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    Would you gladly slave away for the rest of your life so artists and random layabouts can “follow their muse”?
    - gus_massa 4y ago
      I don't mind money for artist, but the problems are wannabe morons that can't draw a circle with the bottom of a bottle. I don't mind money for scientists, but the problems are wannabe morons that try to prove the Earth is flat. You can continue the list... The hard problem is a better method for resource allocation.