4 ms·

You get one chance to make a first impression, and you've lost me in the initial paragraphs > animals own a piece of food only as long as their threat of viole

You get one chance to make a first impression, and you've lost me in the initial paragraphs > animals own a piece of food only as long as their threat of violence keeps other animals at bay... and yet we are trained to hold copyright as a natural right I'd rather chafe under some copyright restrictions on minor parts of my life than be in a life and death struggle over every bite of food, so... so far, you're making the copyright regime look good in comparison to living as a beast without it, and I'm speaking as someone who'd like extensive copyright reform.

tshaddox 3y ago
I don’t even understand the dichotomy the author is trying to paint, because territorialism in animals is also a social construction. It’s a way more complex set of behaviors and norms than just seeing an individual with food and deciding if you can safely steal the food on a case-by-case basis.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Territorialism in animals is a behavioural construct. An animal can defend its territory solely via its own volition and actions, rather than through some herd or tribal agreement. A spider's web or ant lion's trap are both example which suggest territoriality without sociality. (There are of course social insects: bees, ants, and termite most well known.) A social construct would be one which operates through common understanding and agreement amongst multiple animals, typically of a single species, and generally amongst a single tribe or herd. I don't think of examples off the top of my head, though I suspect they exist. I'd also probably want to distinguish instinctual behaviours (e.g., bees, ants, termites) from cultural behaviours, learned, taught, and passed down within a specific group. A cleavage between the two concepts would be that instinctual behaviours re-emerge even when individuals are not raised or taught by older generations, whilst cultural behaviours are lost where the social transmission via teaching is broken. (And yes, the thought comes to mind that several phenomena widely labled as "social constructs" amongst humans would likely be re-labled as instinctual based on the distinction I've drawn here.) Merriam-Webster: "an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society". <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construct https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construc...> ThoughtCo has a brief introduction to the concept of social construct: <https://www.thoughtco.com/social-constructionism-4586374 https://www.thoughtco.com/social-constructionism-4586374>
api 3y ago
You’re right. I think of it this way. The more we dematerialize the economy the more intellectual property will become the only form of property most people can own besides financial assets and their time. Taking that away only gives even more power to the super rich by transforming all human intellectual products into free labor for portals and paywalls to aggregate and sell back to us. They already do that of course but without copyright there would be no way to prevent them from doing it with any work.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  Maybe you should flip your argument. The less we protect "IP", the more we rematerialize the economy, and reward people making innovations in pushing atoms over people pushing electrons. That might be a good thing
  - api 3y ago
    I'm not sure most people can do that in a world with 10 billion humans. A whole lot of pushing atoms will be automated and the rest will require advanced engineering degrees.
rainsford 3y ago
If I'm being generous, I think the point the author was trying to make with that introduction is that the concept of property as a social construct is an extension of animals protecting physical objects such as food, different than the concept of owning an intangible work. If he was as smart as he clearly thinks he is, he'd realize that once you introduce the idea of owning things beyond objects you can physically defend 100% of the time (something the vast majority of people support), whether or not it's actually a physical object becomes much less important compared to the fundamental idea of socially protected ownership.
Rapzid 3y ago
I'm also not really sure where their training came from that copyright is a natural right haha. Seems like a straw man.

tshaddox 3y ago

I don’t even understand the dichotomy the author is trying to paint, because territorialism in animals is also a social construction. It’s a way more complex set of behaviors and norms than just seeing an individual with food and deciding if you can safely steal the food on a case-by-case basis.

dredmorbius 3y ago
Territorialism in animals is a behavioural construct. An animal can defend its territory solely via its own volition and actions, rather than through some herd or tribal agreement. A spider's web or ant lion's trap are both example which suggest territoriality without sociality. (There are of course social insects: bees, ants, and termite most well known.) A social construct would be one which operates through common understanding and agreement amongst multiple animals, typically of a single species, and generally amongst a single tribe or herd. I don't think of examples off the top of my head, though I suspect they exist. I'd also probably want to distinguish instinctual behaviours (e.g., bees, ants, termites) from cultural behaviours, learned, taught, and passed down within a specific group. A cleavage between the two concepts would be that instinctual behaviours re-emerge even when individuals are not raised or taught by older generations, whilst cultural behaviours are lost where the social transmission via teaching is broken. (And yes, the thought comes to mind that several phenomena widely labled as "social constructs" amongst humans would likely be re-labled as instinctual based on the distinction I've drawn here.) Merriam-Webster: "an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society". <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construct https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20construc...> ThoughtCo has a brief introduction to the concept of social construct: <https://www.thoughtco.com/social-constructionism-4586374 https://www.thoughtco.com/social-constructionism-4586374>

api 3y ago

You’re right. I think of it this way. The more we dematerialize the economy the more intellectual property will become the only form of property most people can own besides financial assets and their time. Taking that away only gives even more power to the super rich by transforming all human intellectual products into free labor for portals and paywalls to aggregate and sell back to us. They already do that of course but without copyright there would be no way to prevent them from doing it with any work.

throwawaymaths 3y ago
Maybe you should flip your argument. The less we protect "IP", the more we rematerialize the economy, and reward people making innovations in pushing atoms over people pushing electrons. That might be a good thing
- api 3y ago
  I'm not sure most people can do that in a world with 10 billion humans. A whole lot of pushing atoms will be automated and the rest will require advanced engineering degrees.

rainsford 3y ago

If I'm being generous, I think the point the author was trying to make with that introduction is that the concept of property as a social construct is an extension of animals protecting physical objects such as food, different than the concept of owning an intangible work. If he was as smart as he clearly thinks he is, he'd realize that once you introduce the idea of owning things beyond objects you can physically defend 100% of the time (something the vast majority of people support), whether or not it's actually a physical object becomes much less important compared to the fundamental idea of socially protected ownership.

Rapzid 3y ago

I'm also not really sure where their training came from that copyright is a natural right haha. Seems like a straw man.