13 ms·

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something cr

by Suncho 15y ago

The very existence of an intellectual property market is absurd. In my opinion, the scenarios in which person should expect to make a profit doing something creative are: A. The person is hired to create something. B. The person creates something that's not easy to copy. If you were hired to design a set for a play, you would get paid for your work. If you created a physical three-dimensional sculpture, someone else could try to imitate it, but the imitation wouldn't be a perfect copy. That means your original sculpture would still have value and could be sold. On the other hand, if you, on your own time, created something that cost nothing to copy, such as--oh, I don't know--a picture of a sunset, you should not expect to profit from selling it. It wouldn't matter how much time/effort/money/energy you put into creating it. So, what's going on with SOPA then? The government realized that they don't have the resources to police the Internet for copyright violations. Of course they don't. It's impossible. So now they're attempting to foist that impossible responsibility on website owners. I have no idea how the bill is worded, but I can't imagine a scenario where the wording could be "fixed" while keeping the intention. The intention is broken. Copyright law is broken. Copyright should be non-exclusive. Anyone should be allowed to copy anything for free.

waterlesscloud 15y ago
All this sort of intellectual property market does is move the decision to "hire" someone, that is to use their work in exchange for money, to after the work has been executed rather than before. The person has produced the work and they offer the opportunity to enter into an agreement for payment after the fact. You say you're fine with entering into an agreement before the work is produced, but you don't believe it should be possible to enter into such an agreement after the fact. This doesn't seem very consistent to me.
- Suncho 15y ago
  Of course it's not consistent. The only way it makes sense is if it's not consistent. Why should I have to pay for the creation of something that already exists?
  - waterlesscloud 15y ago
    Like a car, or a house?
    - Suncho 15y ago
      Sure. Why would I pay you to build a car or a house that already exists?
      - waterlesscloud 15y ago
        So you have commissioned everything you own or use before it was created?
        Suncho 15y ago
        No. Why would you say that? Most of the things I own already existed before I acquired them.
  - gurkendoktor 15y ago
    Look at the big picture of the system, not at single transactions. With payment after the fact, artists can optionally use their gut feeling about demand and produce something that they think may sell without having any reputation beforehand. I think that this is essential to entrepreneurship and would hate to see it lost. Many arguments about piracy don't make sense until you look at the big picture. To someone actively selling software, even the "stolen car" analogy makes sense. If everybody steals cars, you go out of business. If everybody steals software, you go out of business. That in the latter case you "lose $0" doesn't help you pay your bills.
    - Suncho 15y ago
      Wow. If everyone could copy whatever car they wanted for free, that would be a good thing. Since everyone would already have a car, car salesmen would go out of business. That's exactly what should happen.
slavak 15y ago
Did you really just discount the entire digital realm as worthless because of the inherent fungibility of bits? Thank God not everyone thinks like you, otherwise our technological progress would basically grind to a halt, as people would be back to trading 6 pigs for 10 loaves of bread.
- Suncho 15y ago
  No. I did not. Just because something can't be bought or sold does not mean it lacks worth. Please explain why you think "technological progress would basically grind to a halt" in a world where people are allowed to collaborate freely.
  - slavak 15y ago
    Because while I'm not sure what kind of world you live in, in mine I need money to put a roof over my head and food on the table - things that according to your world-view definitely do have monetary value. If creating anything digital makes it basically a free-for-all on who can grab it for free faster, then I'm not going to bother as it's not paying my bills. And, in case you haven't noticed, most of our world is pretty much reliant on the digital now. I'm all for free-software and public-domain work, but there's a difference between supporting it and forcing everyone else to follow along. Like it or not, not everyone can or wants to make money out of giving their work away for free.
    - Suncho 15y ago
      I live in a world where, due to the continuous advancement of technological efficiency and the resulting elimintation of jobs, it's becoming increasingly ridiculous to expect people to work for a living. Society no longer needs contributions from everyone. When you get to the point where what you do on a day-to-day basis is no longer directly tied to your livelihood, what will you do? As the number of ways in which an individual can make money rapidly dwindles, what will humanity do?
      - gurkendoktor 15y ago
jodrellblank 15y ago
So you want a world wiyh no more pro quality books, films, music or TV series?
- Suncho 15y ago
  No. I want a world where people write books because they have something to say and they want as many people as possible to read what they have to say.
- bediger 15y ago
  "Pro quality" TV series? You mean like "CSI: Miami"? Or "Gilligan's Island"? Or do you mean movies like "The Smurfs" or the US version of "The Vanishing" or "Leave it To Beaver"? Yes, I'd gladly do without all that TV and all the movies, and most or all of the books. Oh, and the popular music. Especially the music by Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato and Ashlee Simpson.
  - jodrellblank 15y ago
    I mean literally any movie that wasn't made by amateurs supported by another job, or philanthropic donations, or advertising funded. Its low to pick only the worst bits as a counterargument; it also implies no pro quality TV you like. And that you are willing to screw over people who genuinely do like Selena Gomez and Gilligan's Island and the like, just because you don't.
    - Suncho 15y ago
      There's a difference between pro and pro quality. Even then, pro quality is hard to define. I would like a world where higher quality TV shows are more common.
    - bediger 15y ago
      I didn't just pick out the worst bits: there's far worse, that I couldn't even remember. How many "brand new shows" from last Tee Vee season do you watch? I know how many I do: none. Similar, popular music. I probably wouldn't even miss Pixar movies at this point: we're getting to the point that "amateurs" can do them.

by Suncho 15y ago

waterlesscloud 15y ago

All this sort of intellectual property market does is move the decision to "hire" someone, that is to use their work in exchange for money, to after the work has been executed rather than before. The person has produced the work and they offer the opportunity to enter into an agreement for payment after the fact. You say you're fine with entering into an agreement before the work is produced, but you don't believe it should be possible to enter into such an agreement after the fact. This doesn't seem very consistent to me.

Suncho 15y ago
Of course it's not consistent. The only way it makes sense is if it's not consistent. Why should I have to pay for the creation of something that already exists?
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  Like a car, or a house?
  - Suncho 15y ago
    Sure. Why would I pay you to build a car or a house that already exists?
    - waterlesscloud 15y ago
      So you have commissioned everything you own or use before it was created?
      - Suncho 15y ago
        No. Why would you say that? Most of the things I own already existed before I acquired them.
- gurkendoktor 15y ago
  Look at the big picture of the system, not at single transactions. With payment after the fact, artists can optionally use their gut feeling about demand and produce something that they think may sell without having any reputation beforehand. I think that this is essential to entrepreneurship and would hate to see it lost. Many arguments about piracy don't make sense until you look at the big picture. To someone actively selling software, even the "stolen car" analogy makes sense. If everybody steals cars, you go out of business. If everybody steals software, you go out of business. That in the latter case you "lose $0" doesn't help you pay your bills.
  - Suncho 15y ago
    Wow. If everyone could copy whatever car they wanted for free, that would be a good thing. Since everyone would already have a car, car salesmen would go out of business. That's exactly what should happen.

slavak 15y ago

Did you really just discount the entire digital realm as worthless because of the inherent fungibility of bits? Thank God not everyone thinks like you, otherwise our technological progress would basically grind to a halt, as people would be back to trading 6 pigs for 10 loaves of bread.

Suncho 15y ago
No. I did not. Just because something can't be bought or sold does not mean it lacks worth. Please explain why you think "technological progress would basically grind to a halt" in a world where people are allowed to collaborate freely.
- slavak 15y ago
  Because while I'm not sure what kind of world you live in, in mine I need money to put a roof over my head and food on the table - things that according to your world-view definitely do have monetary value. If creating anything digital makes it basically a free-for-all on who can grab it for free faster, then I'm not going to bother as it's not paying my bills. And, in case you haven't noticed, most of our world is pretty much reliant on the digital now. I'm all for free-software and public-domain work, but there's a difference between supporting it and forcing everyone else to follow along. Like it or not, not everyone can or wants to make money out of giving their work away for free.
  - Suncho 15y ago
    I live in a world where, due to the continuous advancement of technological efficiency and the resulting elimintation of jobs, it's becoming increasingly ridiculous to expect people to work for a living. Society no longer needs contributions from everyone. When you get to the point where what you do on a day-to-day basis is no longer directly tied to your livelihood, what will you do? As the number of ways in which an individual can make money rapidly dwindles, what will humanity do?
    - gurkendoktor 15y ago

jodrellblank 15y ago

So you want a world wiyh no more pro quality books, films, music or TV series?

Suncho 15y ago
No. I want a world where people write books because they have something to say and they want as many people as possible to read what they have to say.
bediger 15y ago
"Pro quality" TV series? You mean like "CSI: Miami"? Or "Gilligan's Island"? Or do you mean movies like "The Smurfs" or the US version of "The Vanishing" or "Leave it To Beaver"? Yes, I'd gladly do without all that TV and all the movies, and most or all of the books. Oh, and the popular music. Especially the music by Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato and Ashlee Simpson.
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  I mean literally any movie that wasn't made by amateurs supported by another job, or philanthropic donations, or advertising funded. Its low to pick only the worst bits as a counterargument; it also implies no pro quality TV you like. And that you are willing to screw over people who genuinely do like Selena Gomez and Gilligan's Island and the like, just because you don't.
  - Suncho 15y ago
    There's a difference between pro and pro quality. Even then, pro quality is hard to define. I would like a world where higher quality TV shows are more common.
  - bediger 15y ago
    I didn't just pick out the worst bits: there's far worse, that I couldn't even remember. How many "brand new shows" from last Tee Vee season do you watch? I know how many I do: none. Similar, popular music. I probably wouldn't even miss Pixar movies at this point: we're getting to the point that "amateurs" can do them.