6 ms·

If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). If I have an ide

If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). If I have an idea, or a digital copy of something, you can also use that idea, or also get a digital copy, without depriving me of it. The only reason you can't use my idea or own a digital copy is because society decided that it would punish you for doing so – and that's unnatural in the sense that it doesn't follow from any inherent feature of reality.

encomiast 4y ago
Sure, and also I am bigger and stronger than you. Therefore I take your physical object and you can't stop me. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). Natural laws are brutish and don't support the kind of society that most of us want to live in.
- agalunar 4y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me (or prevents you from taking something from me if you're sneaky or strong enough, as you said). On the other hand, you and I can't both have the same object even if we wanted; it has nothing to do with ability or circumstance. edit: I should clarify that you and I can share something in the sense that we can freely give it back and forth, but if we have one shovel, we can't both be shovelling at the same time (and can't share it at all if we live far apart). And if we're talking about food, well, we can't both take the same bite of bread.
  - anikan_vader 4y ago
    Well, collective ownership and communal property are arguably just as “natural” as private property.
    - robobro 4y ago
      Rather than "private property" do you mean "personal property" ?
  - travisgriggs 4y ago
    > nothing compels you to take something from me What if you’ve hoarded all the food or all the water, and I need it to survive? Would that be compelling? I’m with the other guy. These distinctions are arbitrary. They may be useful for a society that attempts to maximize “happiness@ (also arbitrary), but it remains that they are not universally obvious.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - encomiast 4y ago
    My point is that you are picking and choosing which parts of nature you value. The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. Many people like Locke have tried to connect it nature, but with limited success — it's still a human construct. In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile. So you are taking this idea of ownership, protected by human constructs of law, and then adding a caveat that it only applies to physical objects. But that's not a natural consequence of the idea of ownership. We make up laws based on the outcomes we desire. One of those outcomes, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, is explicitly called out in the US Constitution. Maybe you don't think promoting those things are important, or maybe you don't think copyright is effective at doing that, but you are not making that argument. You are making some novel, unsupportable argument about natural law and physics that frankly doesn't stand up to any sort of rigorous argument.
    - agalunar 4y ago
      I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once. On the other hand, the exact same spatial arrangement can be in two places at once (e.g. the state of bits on a disk, or the idea of a shovel, i.e. the pattern of a shovel as exemplified by two distinct shovels). All of that's obvious. I think what OP was trying to suggest is: Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it.
      - fhsm 4y ago
        I am similar unclear on where this supposed bright line sites but to try and steal man your argument a bit is it possible you looking for the distinction between excludable and rivalrous goods?
        4y ago
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >I'm not really sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me Tons of thing compel someone to get the thing another has - them being hungry, just fancying it, mere greed, etc. All of those are natural feelings. In nature the stronger getting what they wont is the norm. There are no property rights. >On the other hand, you and I can't both have the same object even if we wanted; it has nothing to do with ability or circumstance. So? Physics is not the basis of law in a society. Just a hard limit of what can be done. But one can e.g. just kill you by hitting you with a rock, and physics is 100% fine with that, as is biology. Physics doesn't care either way. It's just a bunch of equations that describe how matter interacts, not a legal or moral code, and it doesn't get into the baseline state of animal behavior in nature... We still have laws against it though.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    > nothing compels you No more than nothing compels you to take exclusive ownership of something that comes from the land!
- mushbino 4y ago
  The golden rule is pretty universal for human.
  - komali2 4y ago
    The golden rule fails as soon as you introduce someone of one culture to another. Example: my friends and I have a massively western-masculine internal culture. At parties people would ask if we were "ok" because a minute earlier we'd have been shouting at each other how smooth brained and stupid each other was. Of course we'd be fine, that's how we talk to each other. We'd get frustrated if someone tried to talk through implication - one time I asked my friend to put his seatbelt on and he said "wtf just tell me to put my fucking seat belt on don't be all soft about it." But if we turned that culture on someone else we'd be the most horrible of bullies. Not everyone wants to be "talked to straight" like that, and that's fine. I'd get mad if someone let me walk around with a booger on my face. "do unto me" is to say to me "lol saving that for later?", But to someone else a much more polite method is probably desirable. "Do unto me" might mean literally not talking to or approaching someone. It might mean feeling spurned or like someone thinks you're disgusting if a hug or handshake is avoided. Do unto me is far too simple a rule. We need more communication involved.
    - brabel 4y ago
      > my friends and I have a massively western-masculine internal culture. Sounds to me like you just have "teenage boy" culture.
      - komali2 4y ago
        Sure, you can call it that, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, I was just talking to my gf about how despite its toxicity, it was a pretty viable social training ground. My theory is that it allowed all of us grown up in it to much better handle awkward, uncomfortable, or dangerous social situations, by giving us the tools to defuse most situations. Meanwhile she was bringing up tools for defusing situations because she heard it from a twitch streamer. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, I'm just saying, it was how we learned, and led to us very rarely feeling uncomfortable in any social situation.
- yucky 4y ago
  Except in that instance you would be depriving him of that thing. Making a digital copy of what he has would no more deprive him of that thing than taking a picture of his painting on the wall.
- johnnymorgan 4y ago
  You've misconstrued natural law with might is right, which is a concept not a law.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object Depending on the definition of having, which goes begs the question.
Winsaucerer 4y ago
> If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. The parent was asking which laws are not constructs, and your example I don't think works as an answer to that question. In what sense do you "have" that physical object? For example, what does it mean to say "I have a phone"? "Having" in that sense is a construct, not a natural thing. You might be holding the phone, you might put it down, I might hold it while you are holding it, I might pick it up when you put it down, I might look at it while you aren't, etc. But there's nothing in any of those real natural world descriptions that correspond to having, until you start to include our social constructs around possession.
- pookeh 4y ago
  He means owning the phone.
- agalunar 4y ago
  This was imprecise on my part; I apologize. I explained what I meant by "having" in a daughter comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299668) and made a clarification regarding sharing in another (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299420).
hurril 4y ago
Sure I can. The one you were just holding. You are relying on the meaning of the concept of having or owning, thinking that you don’t have to either define that or rely on a preexisting definition. Whoops.
uxcolumbo 4y ago
How do we ensure that creators are well compensated for their creations that are enjoyed by thousands or millions of people, so they can continue creating without ending up having to flip burgers and not creating at all?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
berniedurfee 4y ago
But you’re depriving the person that originally created the original digital something of the proceeds from their hard work. I don’t think we can have a conversation about free distribution of IP without considering the original creator. The creator depends on getting remunerated for each copy of their work. How are they to live?
muyuu 4y ago
> f I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). the unnatural, made up construct is that your property is recognised and respected by law, so that you don't have to physically defend it and potentially lose it to someone or some group stronger, perhaps more violent, than yourself if you only recognise physical ownership, you only own objects as long as you can physically protect them yourself and you explicitly deny any further rights not to have them robbed, as that is also an "unnatural, made up construct" - you were not robbed, there is a just different physical ownership going on now

encomiast 4y ago

Sure, and also I am bigger and stronger than you. Therefore I take your physical object and you can't stop me. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). Natural laws are brutish and don't support the kind of society that most of us want to live in.

agalunar 4y ago
I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me (or prevents you from taking something from me if you're sneaky or strong enough, as you said). On the other hand, you and I can't both have the same object even if we wanted; it has nothing to do with ability or circumstance. edit: I should clarify that you and I can share something in the sense that we can freely give it back and forth, but if we have one shovel, we can't both be shovelling at the same time (and can't share it at all if we live far apart). And if we're talking about food, well, we can't both take the same bite of bread.
- anikan_vader 4y ago
  Well, collective ownership and communal property are arguably just as “natural” as private property.
  - robobro 4y ago
    Rather than "private property" do you mean "personal property" ?
- travisgriggs 4y ago
  > nothing compels you to take something from me What if you’ve hoarded all the food or all the water, and I need it to survive? Would that be compelling? I’m with the other guy. These distinctions are arbitrary. They may be useful for a society that attempts to maximize “happiness@ (also arbitrary), but it remains that they are not universally obvious.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- encomiast 4y ago
  My point is that you are picking and choosing which parts of nature you value. The idea of "having", of ownership, is not natural. Many people like Locke have tried to connect it nature, but with limited success — it's still a human construct. In the natural world ownership is defended purely by force or guile. So you are taking this idea of ownership, protected by human constructs of law, and then adding a caveat that it only applies to physical objects. But that's not a natural consequence of the idea of ownership. We make up laws based on the outcomes we desire. One of those outcomes, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, is explicitly called out in the US Constitution. Maybe you don't think promoting those things are important, or maybe you don't think copyright is effective at doing that, but you are not making that argument. You are making some novel, unsupportable argument about natural law and physics that frankly doesn't stand up to any sort of rigorous argument.
  - agalunar 4y ago
    I believe I understand what you're saying, but I feel we're talking about different things, so I may have miscommunicated my point. I'm not talking about ownership as recognized or enforced by people (in fact, I never used the word "own" or "ownership"). All I mean is that if something is over here by me, it can't be over there by you, because things can't be in two places at once. On the other hand, the exact same spatial arrangement can be in two places at once (e.g. the state of bits on a disk, or the idea of a shovel, i.e. the pattern of a shovel as exemplified by two distinct shovels). All of that's obvious. I think what OP was trying to suggest is: Despite the obvious difference between physical things and ideas, we often treat them similarly (specifically, we treat ideas like physical objects). And perhaps that would seem a bit strange if we weren't so used to it.
    - fhsm 4y ago
      I am similar unclear on where this supposed bright line sites but to try and steal man your argument a bit is it possible you looking for the distinction between excludable and rivalrous goods?
      - 4y ago
- coldtea 4y ago
  >I'm not really sure what point you're making. That's not physical law in the same sense – nothing compels you to take something from me Tons of thing compel someone to get the thing another has - them being hungry, just fancying it, mere greed, etc. All of those are natural feelings. In nature the stronger getting what they wont is the norm. There are no property rights. >On the other hand, you and I can't both have the same object even if we wanted; it has nothing to do with ability or circumstance. So? Physics is not the basis of law in a society. Just a hard limit of what can be done. But one can e.g. just kill you by hitting you with a rock, and physics is 100% fine with that, as is biology. Physics doesn't care either way. It's just a bunch of equations that describe how matter interacts, not a legal or moral code, and it doesn't get into the baseline state of animal behavior in nature... We still have laws against it though.
- freejazz 4y ago
  > nothing compels you No more than nothing compels you to take exclusive ownership of something that comes from the land!
mushbino 4y ago
The golden rule is pretty universal for human.
- komali2 4y ago
  The golden rule fails as soon as you introduce someone of one culture to another. Example: my friends and I have a massively western-masculine internal culture. At parties people would ask if we were "ok" because a minute earlier we'd have been shouting at each other how smooth brained and stupid each other was. Of course we'd be fine, that's how we talk to each other. We'd get frustrated if someone tried to talk through implication - one time I asked my friend to put his seatbelt on and he said "wtf just tell me to put my fucking seat belt on don't be all soft about it." But if we turned that culture on someone else we'd be the most horrible of bullies. Not everyone wants to be "talked to straight" like that, and that's fine. I'd get mad if someone let me walk around with a booger on my face. "do unto me" is to say to me "lol saving that for later?", But to someone else a much more polite method is probably desirable. "Do unto me" might mean literally not talking to or approaching someone. It might mean feeling spurned or like someone thinks you're disgusting if a hug or handshake is avoided. Do unto me is far too simple a rule. We need more communication involved.
  - brabel 4y ago
    > my friends and I have a massively western-masculine internal culture. Sounds to me like you just have "teenage boy" culture.
    - komali2 4y ago
      Sure, you can call it that, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it, I was just talking to my gf about how despite its toxicity, it was a pretty viable social training ground. My theory is that it allowed all of us grown up in it to much better handle awkward, uncomfortable, or dangerous social situations, by giving us the tools to defuse most situations. Meanwhile she was bringing up tools for defusing situations because she heard it from a twitch streamer. I'm not saying one way is better than the other, I'm just saying, it was how we learned, and led to us very rarely feeling uncomfortable in any social situation.
yucky 4y ago
Except in that instance you would be depriving him of that thing. Making a digital copy of what he has would no more deprive him of that thing than taking a picture of his painting on the wall.
johnnymorgan 4y ago
You've misconstrued natural law with might is right, which is a concept not a law.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object Depending on the definition of having, which goes begs the question.

Winsaucerer 4y ago

> If I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. The parent was asking which laws are not constructs, and your example I don't think works as an answer to that question. In what sense do you "have" that physical object? For example, what does it mean to say "I have a phone"? "Having" in that sense is a construct, not a natural thing. You might be holding the phone, you might put it down, I might hold it while you are holding it, I might pick it up when you put it down, I might look at it while you aren't, etc. But there's nothing in any of those real natural world descriptions that correspond to having, until you start to include our social constructs around possession.

pookeh 4y ago
He means owning the phone.
agalunar 4y ago
This was imprecise on my part; I apologize. I explained what I meant by "having" in a daughter comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299668) and made a clarification regarding sharing in another (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35299420).

hurril 4y ago

Sure I can. The one you were just holding. You are relying on the meaning of the concept of having or owning, thinking that you don’t have to either define that or rely on a preexisting definition. Whoops.

uxcolumbo 4y ago

How do we ensure that creators are well compensated for their creations that are enjoyed by thousands or millions of people, so they can continue creating without ending up having to flip burgers and not creating at all?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

berniedurfee 4y ago

But you’re depriving the person that originally created the original digital something of the proceeds from their hard work. I don’t think we can have a conversation about free distribution of IP without considering the original creator. The creator depends on getting remunerated for each copy of their work. How are they to live?

muyuu 4y ago

> f I have a physical object, you can't also have that physical object. That's natural in the sense that it follows from natural law (physics). the unnatural, made up construct is that your property is recognised and respected by law, so that you don't have to physically defend it and potentially lose it to someone or some group stronger, perhaps more violent, than yourself if you only recognise physical ownership, you only own objects as long as you can physically protect them yourself and you explicitly deny any further rights not to have them robbed, as that is also an "unnatural, made up construct" - you were not robbed, there is a just different physical ownership going on now