3 ms·

No, because intellectual property is not real property in the first place. Artists are hypocrites that fight against IP when they want to pirate productivity so

No, because intellectual property is not real property in the first place. Artists are hypocrites that fight against IP when they want to pirate productivity software and then turn around and defend IP when it would benefit them.

voltaireodactyl 4y ago
As a thought experiment I replaced “artists” with “coders”, ”IP” with “proprietary code”, and “productivity software” with “movies, books, art”. I suspect this analogy may be less convincing than intended.
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  No, it’s still convincing. I’m just more consistent than you are. Intellectual “property” should not have special legal protections. You don’t have the right to prevent me from copying your art or code unless i voluntarily signed a contract agreeing to it. Repeat after me, force is only justified in response to force. Artists are free to protect their work the same way a software developer might: just keep it private.
  - voltaireodactyl 4y ago
    I'm confused. Didn't you specify "pirating productivity software" as the supposed crime of artists (the group you also specified)? In your imagined scenario, what's the crime you're perceiving? If the folks who created the productivity software wanted to keep it protected, they should have just made it private -- correct? I fear that (as in the case of your analogies) your positions may not be as consistent as you believe them to be. In terms of intellectual property -- if creation of value is the primary means of obtaining a livelihood in a given society (such as ours), and folks value the work an artist creates, they should be paid for that effort. Same as the person valued for tending bar, or for providing medical care, etc. If you propose the creation of an entirely new form of society, then buddy tell me when and where to be because that's something I'd like to be a part of. But even then "artists pirating software" isn't where I'd start laying the foundations.
    - alphanullmeric 4y ago
      I don’t think pirating software should be a crime. That’s my point. I’m consistent on my principle and you aren’t. I don’t decide to support IP when it would benefit me, I’m against it always. Adobe can protect their sources by limiting source access and mandating NDAs for their employees. I’m not stealing anything from you by copying your art or pirating your software. You still have it. If me and you haven’t signed a contract, I don’t owe you shit. Simple as that.
      - voltaireodactyl 4y ago
        You keep saying I pick-and-choose when to support IP. Nowhere have I said any such thing. Rather, I consistently support it — in the case of software, art, engineering, and medicine, etc. When an actual alternative financial model with a chance at becoming reality appears, I’ll be first in line. That I disagree with your position is not inconsistency on my part, it’s a reflection of us having different values. That’s okay. I’d still love to hear your alternative financial model, like I said. Unless you’re accusing me of being a secret artist? Even then, that assumes your position (“all artists, without exception, support the theft of software tools but do not support the theft of their own material”) is correct, which it is not. For starters, how are we defining artist? For example, do you imagine Mimes are pilfering Adobe on principle?
        alphanullmeric 4y ago
        You’re against pirating then?
        voltaireodactyl 4y ago
        Philosophically? Not at all. Morally? Depends on the circumstances. Practically? Yes. I like art, and wish to keep seeing it produced at a high level of quality, and that requires community. So until the world agrees on an economy not premised on extraction of value from the individual, I oppose pirating. Pay people for their work. That being said, I know I don't speak only for myself when I say I would prefer to be paid for my work, but if the price will prevent someone from seeing it, I'd prefer the work be seen. Be careful not to confuse artists, who create things, with distributors, who do not. They are the ones you're really angry at.

voltaireodactyl 4y ago

As a thought experiment I replaced “artists” with “coders”, ”IP” with “proprietary code”, and “productivity software” with “movies, books, art”. I suspect this analogy may be less convincing than intended.

alphanullmeric 4y ago
No, it’s still convincing. I’m just more consistent than you are. Intellectual “property” should not have special legal protections. You don’t have the right to prevent me from copying your art or code unless i voluntarily signed a contract agreeing to it. Repeat after me, force is only justified in response to force. Artists are free to protect their work the same way a software developer might: just keep it private.
- voltaireodactyl 4y ago
  I'm confused. Didn't you specify "pirating productivity software" as the supposed crime of artists (the group you also specified)? In your imagined scenario, what's the crime you're perceiving? If the folks who created the productivity software wanted to keep it protected, they should have just made it private -- correct? I fear that (as in the case of your analogies) your positions may not be as consistent as you believe them to be. In terms of intellectual property -- if creation of value is the primary means of obtaining a livelihood in a given society (such as ours), and folks value the work an artist creates, they should be paid for that effort. Same as the person valued for tending bar, or for providing medical care, etc. If you propose the creation of an entirely new form of society, then buddy tell me when and where to be because that's something I'd like to be a part of. But even then "artists pirating software" isn't where I'd start laying the foundations.
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    I don’t think pirating software should be a crime. That’s my point. I’m consistent on my principle and you aren’t. I don’t decide to support IP when it would benefit me, I’m against it always. Adobe can protect their sources by limiting source access and mandating NDAs for their employees. I’m not stealing anything from you by copying your art or pirating your software. You still have it. If me and you haven’t signed a contract, I don’t owe you shit. Simple as that.
    - voltaireodactyl 4y ago
      You keep saying I pick-and-choose when to support IP. Nowhere have I said any such thing. Rather, I consistently support it — in the case of software, art, engineering, and medicine, etc. When an actual alternative financial model with a chance at becoming reality appears, I’ll be first in line. That I disagree with your position is not inconsistency on my part, it’s a reflection of us having different values. That’s okay. I’d still love to hear your alternative financial model, like I said. Unless you’re accusing me of being a secret artist? Even then, that assumes your position (“all artists, without exception, support the theft of software tools but do not support the theft of their own material”) is correct, which it is not. For starters, how are we defining artist? For example, do you imagine Mimes are pilfering Adobe on principle?
      - alphanullmeric 4y ago
        You’re against pirating then?
        voltaireodactyl 4y ago
        Philosophically? Not at all. Morally? Depends on the circumstances. Practically? Yes. I like art, and wish to keep seeing it produced at a high level of quality, and that requires community. So until the world agrees on an economy not premised on extraction of value from the individual, I oppose pirating. Pay people for their work. That being said, I know I don't speak only for myself when I say I would prefer to be paid for my work, but if the price will prevent someone from seeing it, I'd prefer the work be seen. Be careful not to confuse artists, who create things, with distributors, who do not. They are the ones you're really angry at.