7 ms·

Unpopular opinion : the government shouldn’t protect your art from getting used as training data. The government shouldn’t protect your generated art from being

Unpopular opinion : the government shouldn’t protect your art from getting used as training data. The government shouldn’t protect your generated art from being copied. Intellectual property is not real property. Nothing is being taken from you. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get the right to throw someone in jail for “stealing” something you still have.

nextlevelwizard 4y ago
Do you also agree that government should not enforce if I borrow your bike while you are not using it if I return it? If not how is that different? You still have the bike and you werent using it while I borrowed it - you just didn’t know I was borrowing it
- gumballindie 4y ago
  Probably doesnt mind that entire countries have built their economic models around copying ip and selling copycat products.
- yipbub 4y ago
  In universe of perfectly slippery spherical cows, I wouldn't mind. However, in this universe bikes experience wear, I wouldn't be able to spontaneously decide to use it, etc.
  - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
    You writing a shitty knock off Harry Potter novel "wears" on the brand. Just think your favorite book, movie, or music and think if you would enjoy it if there was really no way to know what was real work and what was just some copy-cat or straight up scammer selling rubbish. Now it is easy; you can not publish your Harry Potter novel due to copyright. Put it in another way: to become a author in a world where copyright is not a thing is pretty much impossible. Either you have to sell your book digitally with draconian DRM - and you will still get your book stolen or you have to own your own print shop, because if you send your book to any publisher they can just take your work and publish it as their own. And let's be real the amount your bike wears out from me riding it to the shop and back is so negligible that it won't make a difference in the life span of the bike. There are good reasons to have copyright - however I do not like how long the copyright is. I've stated it before that in my mind good copyright would be something like 10-20 years or life time of the author whatever comes later. This would allow any creative to hold the right to their world/characters/whatever until they are gone and it wouldn't discourage them from publishing in their old age since even after they have passed their families would still benefit from the works for sometime.
    - yipbub 4y ago
      I agree with the business use-case for copyright, trademark, intellectual property, it is a useful collective agreement. To the extent that it is useful. I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that it is useful that giant software automatons and conglomerates should not get the benefit human creativity until they pass down the value to the creators. Automation should mean less work for everyone, not hyper-profiteering for the few.
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  My bike is real property. Your thoughts are not.
  - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
    Tell me you have never done anything creative in your life without telling me you have never done anything creative in your life.
    - alphanullmeric 4y ago
      Implying I’d be willing to bend my principles when they don’t benefit me, which I wouldn’t. That’s what makes us different.
      - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
        Press X to doubt
        alphanullmeric 4y ago
        Should you be fined for copying an NFT or do your intellectual “property” rules only apply when they benefit you?
        nextlevelwizard 4y ago
        What does "copying an NFT" mean? 1. You mean copying the image that the NFT points to? The copyright of that image still exists even with the NFT. So existence of NFT doesn't change anything about the picture's copyright. With or without NFT you can not sell prints of the image or use it however you want without permission of the copyright holder. 2. You mean copying the actual NFT i.e. somehow taking over the block in the chain and assigning it to you? That is a kin to stealing. Why does it matter if the property is digital or physical? This is the kind of mental gymnastics kids use to justify their pirating of entertainment. "I only *copied* this album, I didn't steal it, the artist still has theirs" is such 14 years old's take on the issue. If you don't want to pay for the media you are consuming then don't pay, but then you also shouldn't consume it. This kind of take just shows more how some people haven never created anything of value, yet they want to extract every bit of value from the society. It sure would be nice if we lived in a world where copyright and patents weren't necessary, but people try to take advantage of everything and anything, so to protect innovation and creativity we need copyright and patents.
hnbad 4y ago
There is no such thing as private property. It's a fiction enforced with the threat of violence. It's even fairly recent as a concept. If we agree that private property should exist, "it's not real" is not a good argument for why intellectual property shouldn't exist. Not all violations of private property have to be stealing. If I sleep in the empty house you own, that is trespass even if I don't cause any physical damage. If I tend to the garden of the summer home you own and eat the fruit that would have spoiled by the time you came by, I still violated your property rights even if I left the garden in a better condition than I found it. If we abolish intellectual property, why should we keep money, which at this point is entirely virtual? Why should we allow stocks, which represent a partial ownership claim in a legal entity that lays claim on other property? Why should we allow corporations, which are afforded similar rights as real persons but don't physically exist? Why should we allow ownership of land which is unused, homes that aren't lived in, produce that isn't consumed? Why should we allow private property at all? If you want to abolish private property, I'm all on board with you, but if you think intellectual property is tangibly different you need to take a closer look at how private property came about and what it even means.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  Private property !== personal possessions. I, for one, don't agree private property should exist, just like intellectual property. There is no place in the future for such concepts, they all feel quite antiquated.
  - anticensor 4y ago
    What about possessionless property rights, that are only utilised to enforce theft and robbery laws?
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT? I don’t want the government to be involved in virtual money. Stocks are a claim to physical property, corporations are (or should be) a convenient way to address physical property pooled together from multiple people. The rest of your comment can be addressed with the homestead principle - if I didn’t take it by force you can’t take it from me by force.
greysphere 4y ago
So if I trash your house that's cool? You still have your house, it's just in a different entropy state. Or maybe one particular state had more value than another? So maybe when other people value different entropic states over others, perhaps that has value?
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  > Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT?
  - greysphere 4y ago
    I'm interpreting your view as property only applies to physical things or abstractions of physical things. Is there a name for this theory? I'd say I subscribe to the labor theory or property and it's interesting to think about this from another perspective. There's a couple cases I'm having trouble with. For example, is an ip address property? Seems so because it represents a physical scheme about the routing of ip packets. Similarly an email address or physical address seems like property. If any of these were replicated/spoofed by someone else, they would disrupt the ability to physically route whatever (bits, packages). Ok. But then what about trademarks? In some ways those are 'pull' addresses - I go to the store, and buy a Coke and I'm expecting that thing labeled Coke to be the physical product I expect, not some spoofed version of Coke. But that label and what not is just a picture, and the original picture wasn't harmed in any way when the spoofed version was created. Is this concept just not allowed and we accept that inefficiency? Or maybe trademarks are allowed as property because they represent the physical concept of the systems the Coke corporation has put in place to create and produce Coke. But if that's the case, then what about a non-trademark painting? If I go to the store and see a painting by an artist I like, and want to support them and the physical systems the went into generating that painting, and not be spoofed should that be supported? (Though maybe all this could be solved with a QR code or DOP label or something. Though somewhat inconvenient to have to robustly check that all the time).

nextlevelwizard 4y ago

Do you also agree that government should not enforce if I borrow your bike while you are not using it if I return it? If not how is that different? You still have the bike and you werent using it while I borrowed it - you just didn’t know I was borrowing it

gumballindie 4y ago
Probably doesnt mind that entire countries have built their economic models around copying ip and selling copycat products.
yipbub 4y ago
In universe of perfectly slippery spherical cows, I wouldn't mind. However, in this universe bikes experience wear, I wouldn't be able to spontaneously decide to use it, etc.
- nextlevelwizard 4y ago
  You writing a shitty knock off Harry Potter novel "wears" on the brand. Just think your favorite book, movie, or music and think if you would enjoy it if there was really no way to know what was real work and what was just some copy-cat or straight up scammer selling rubbish. Now it is easy; you can not publish your Harry Potter novel due to copyright. Put it in another way: to become a author in a world where copyright is not a thing is pretty much impossible. Either you have to sell your book digitally with draconian DRM - and you will still get your book stolen or you have to own your own print shop, because if you send your book to any publisher they can just take your work and publish it as their own. And let's be real the amount your bike wears out from me riding it to the shop and back is so negligible that it won't make a difference in the life span of the bike. There are good reasons to have copyright - however I do not like how long the copyright is. I've stated it before that in my mind good copyright would be something like 10-20 years or life time of the author whatever comes later. This would allow any creative to hold the right to their world/characters/whatever until they are gone and it wouldn't discourage them from publishing in their old age since even after they have passed their families would still benefit from the works for sometime.
  - yipbub 4y ago
    I agree with the business use-case for copyright, trademark, intellectual property, it is a useful collective agreement. To the extent that it is useful. I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that it is useful that giant software automatons and conglomerates should not get the benefit human creativity until they pass down the value to the creators. Automation should mean less work for everyone, not hyper-profiteering for the few.
alphanullmeric 4y ago
My bike is real property. Your thoughts are not.
- nextlevelwizard 4y ago
  Tell me you have never done anything creative in your life without telling me you have never done anything creative in your life.
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    Implying I’d be willing to bend my principles when they don’t benefit me, which I wouldn’t. That’s what makes us different.
    - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
      Press X to doubt
      - alphanullmeric 4y ago
        Should you be fined for copying an NFT or do your intellectual “property” rules only apply when they benefit you?
        nextlevelwizard 4y ago
        What does "copying an NFT" mean? 1. You mean copying the image that the NFT points to? The copyright of that image still exists even with the NFT. So existence of NFT doesn't change anything about the picture's copyright. With or without NFT you can not sell prints of the image or use it however you want without permission of the copyright holder. 2. You mean copying the actual NFT i.e. somehow taking over the block in the chain and assigning it to you? That is a kin to stealing. Why does it matter if the property is digital or physical? This is the kind of mental gymnastics kids use to justify their pirating of entertainment. "I only *copied* this album, I didn't steal it, the artist still has theirs" is such 14 years old's take on the issue. If you don't want to pay for the media you are consuming then don't pay, but then you also shouldn't consume it. This kind of take just shows more how some people haven never created anything of value, yet they want to extract every bit of value from the society. It sure would be nice if we lived in a world where copyright and patents weren't necessary, but people try to take advantage of everything and anything, so to protect innovation and creativity we need copyright and patents.

hnbad 4y ago

There is no such thing as private property. It's a fiction enforced with the threat of violence. It's even fairly recent as a concept. If we agree that private property should exist, "it's not real" is not a good argument for why intellectual property shouldn't exist. Not all violations of private property have to be stealing. If I sleep in the empty house you own, that is trespass even if I don't cause any physical damage. If I tend to the garden of the summer home you own and eat the fruit that would have spoiled by the time you came by, I still violated your property rights even if I left the garden in a better condition than I found it. If we abolish intellectual property, why should we keep money, which at this point is entirely virtual? Why should we allow stocks, which represent a partial ownership claim in a legal entity that lays claim on other property? Why should we allow corporations, which are afforded similar rights as real persons but don't physically exist? Why should we allow ownership of land which is unused, homes that aren't lived in, produce that isn't consumed? Why should we allow private property at all? If you want to abolish private property, I'm all on board with you, but if you think intellectual property is tangibly different you need to take a closer look at how private property came about and what it even means.

beepbooptheory 4y ago
Private property !== personal possessions. I, for one, don't agree private property should exist, just like intellectual property. There is no place in the future for such concepts, they all feel quite antiquated.
- anticensor 4y ago
  What about possessionless property rights, that are only utilised to enforce theft and robbery laws?
alphanullmeric 4y ago
Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT? I don’t want the government to be involved in virtual money. Stocks are a claim to physical property, corporations are (or should be) a convenient way to address physical property pooled together from multiple people. The rest of your comment can be addressed with the homestead principle - if I didn’t take it by force you can’t take it from me by force.

greysphere 4y ago

So if I trash your house that's cool? You still have your house, it's just in a different entropy state. Or maybe one particular state had more value than another? So maybe when other people value different entropic states over others, perhaps that has value?

alphanullmeric 4y ago
> Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT?
- greysphere 4y ago
  I'm interpreting your view as property only applies to physical things or abstractions of physical things. Is there a name for this theory? I'd say I subscribe to the labor theory or property and it's interesting to think about this from another perspective. There's a couple cases I'm having trouble with. For example, is an ip address property? Seems so because it represents a physical scheme about the routing of ip packets. Similarly an email address or physical address seems like property. If any of these were replicated/spoofed by someone else, they would disrupt the ability to physically route whatever (bits, packages). Ok. But then what about trademarks? In some ways those are 'pull' addresses - I go to the store, and buy a Coke and I'm expecting that thing labeled Coke to be the physical product I expect, not some spoofed version of Coke. But that label and what not is just a picture, and the original picture wasn't harmed in any way when the spoofed version was created. Is this concept just not allowed and we accept that inefficiency? Or maybe trademarks are allowed as property because they represent the physical concept of the systems the Coke corporation has put in place to create and produce Coke. But if that's the case, then what about a non-trademark painting? If I go to the store and see a painting by an artist I like, and want to support them and the physical systems the went into generating that painting, and not be spoofed should that be supported? (Though maybe all this could be solved with a QR code or DOP label or something. Though somewhat inconvenient to have to robustly check that all the time).