8 ms·

Intellectual property shouldn’t be a thing. If you still have it after I’ve supposedly stolen it from you, then it’s not real property. The easiest test of cons

Intellectual property shouldn’t be a thing. If you still have it after I’ve supposedly stolen it from you, then it’s not real property. The easiest test of consistency is simply to ask about both piracy and AI training data. If you support IP in one case but not the other then you’re a hypocrite. There is no third option where your support of something depends not on what it is but who it benefits.

gumballindie 3y ago
You do realise that if people’s intellectual work is not protected there wont be any intellectual work left, right? Why would i create something knowing you can just grab it and use it? Communism did the same to physical property, where you didnt own much and everything belonged to everyone. That didnt end particularly well because people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation. Sure you can use it, but according to the terms and conditions of the owner. Same goes for owning objects. You can use my car if i let you use my car.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Well, by law, i do and you do owe me royalties. Hopefully these people hire better lawyers next time. Also people tend to get upset when their ownership of things is violated, pixels or otherwise.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      Sure then, by law I could have had slaves too. Glad you’re honest about the side of history you sit on.
      - gumballindie 3y ago
        The concept of intellectual property came about at the same time that slavery was fading away. Essentially at the time when people progressed into something better than basic primates that thought enslaving one another is a good idea. So technically speaking advocates for the abolition of copyright are projecting a reversal of progress. I want actual ai that actually learns and that doesnt rely on brute forcing simulated intelligence using a clever mix of people’s ideas. By tolerating this fakery you are really just handing over the bastardisation of the holy grail of tech - ai - to a handful of grifters who’s success relies on taking what’s mine for free and giving it to others for a fee. At scale and with government protection.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Irrelevant. You said “it’s the law”. I responded with “it’s the law”. You lack consistency, more at 12. I already made it clear in my original comment that unlike you, my position on IP holds universally and not just in situations that benefit me. The fact that you continue to try to argue how beneficial it would be to have IP makes me believe that you simply do not care about being consistent, so I’d like to hear it from you personally. You believe in IP when it comes to stopping AI but not when it prevents you from pirating, agree or disagree? If I don’t get a one word answer I’ll answer for you.
        gumballindie 3y ago
        I dont care about what holds universally “true” in some peole’s minds about _my_ property. That’s communism. I am an individual therefore i care about _my_ ownership. Communism wanted to make everything belong to everyone. Philosophical darwinism proved that that concept is wrong. What’s mine is mine, period. I never pirate software and no, I dont think piracy is a good idea either. I believe in open source and that human knowledge should he free in the sense of librem but i equally believe that that should be according to terms and conditions. So i, as a human, would like to read and understand your idea but if you dont wish to grant me the right to monetise it - sure.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Do you think the creator of a piece of art has any rights whatsoever? You're basically endorsing the idea that if you stumble across some original work that you're able to make a copy of, there's nothing wrong with falsely declaring yourself the author of it and collecting money from anyone you can trick into believing this.
    - alphanullmeric 3y ago
      You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels. Do you believe copying is force? That’s a yes or no question, and if I don’t get a yes or no answer then I’ll answer for you.
      - ChadNauseam 3y ago
        > You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels. This just sounds like your opinion, why do you think this? I really like that people can profitably write books and make movies and I think some force to allow that to happen seems reasonable.
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Of course it’s my opinion that force is only justified in response to force, disagree?
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        I reject your whole premise here, as many thefts can occur without force, and many legal remedies are imposed without force. You're just ducking the question; it seems you're saying that 'no, you don't have any rights that you can enforce in court.' You'd probably object to extralegal enforcement on the basis that it violates the NAP or some other glibertarian trope.
  - astrange 3y ago
    The pyramids weren't built by slaves. The ones in Egypt at least.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Copyright activists really lost a lot of respect because of those silly music industry lawsuits, the mickey mouse protection act, software patents of trivial stuff and the like. This lawsuit is even sillier than the previous ones.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Thank god copyright came along and gave us Shakespeare, Bach, da Vinci, Chaucer, Beethoven… And can you imagine life without the wheel? Too bad we didn’t invent patents earlier so that we could’ve gotten a head start inventing it and the spear.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    Fire was copyrighted by humans, that's why the other apes can't use it.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  This is how moneyheads think the world works: that everything is a series of monetary incentives to be linked together to make an end result. Most humans don't actually think this way, and in specific a LOT of creative work is made without calculating exactly what the profit is going to be. This doesn't mean that artists don't want to be paid, but that artists focus on making their work first and monetizing it later. What copyright actually protects is creative industry. By assigning individualized monopolies over copying and reproduction, the publishing industry can persistently lowball the shit out of artists (who themselves undervalue their work, see above) and then reap the profits for themselves. Since the vast majority of creative work would never see market interest, it's cheaper to pay billions of dollars to the handful of known, recognizable, and marketable mega-successes than to pay smaller amounts to a far larger pool of mid-list or unknown artists. This is why unions exist in basically every creative industry: otherwise, nobody below the talent line[0] gets paid. To put a finer point on it: right now, the unions are doing a way better job of protecting human artists against AI art than copyright is. The argument for training AI being infringing is very weak in the general case where there's no obvious regurgitation. I mean, where does your copyrighted material even 'live' in the model, if the model can't even reproduce it? However, unions can very easily just say "you can't force us to cut corners by using this tool" in their negotiations and actually get that result. Furthermore, those rulings only bind publishers that hire artists. The artists themselves can still use AI when it makes sense in their workflow, rather than when publishers think they can cheap out on shit. The failures of Soviet communism are complicated, but if you had to boil it down to one factor, I would not summarize it as "communal ownership bad" or "collectivism bad". Collective action has its place. Furthermore, the analogy you're making between copyright and physical property is flawed[1]. The reason why physical property ownership even exists is because of scarcity - the reason why I need permission to use your car is because you can't use your car if I'm also using it. The irony of your communism analogy is that copyright is specifically used to erode ownership in private property in a way that makes the communism haters cry communism. There's a novel form of copyright misuse as a business model in which you put software in a thing that used to not require software, call it "smart", and then use the software to enforce your own idea of what "owning" the product means, backed up by the same laws that make it illegal to copy DVDs. There are a LOT of people who would like to go back to owning their cars and computers again, and that requires rolling back copyright, not strengthening it. [0] Hollywood-ism for "people whose contribution to the work is not marketable" [1] And, I suspect, a by-product of having read a bunch of Ayn Rand nonsense
- vortegne 3y ago
  "people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation". That is the founding idea of communism indeed. I'm not sure you understand anything about it.
czl 3y ago
Say someone takes your written work (say your online comments, any articles, blogs etc) and claims it as their own. You still have a copy of your work but now your audience the authorship is in doubt. Would you be against this happening to you? What are your thoughts about plagiarism? How is this different from "copyright"?
- simbolit 3y ago
  You are straw-manning. Imagine you encounter a public domain image (which by definition is not protected by copyright), you download it, and put it on your website. Perfectly fine. But if you write "I made this image" below it, you are a liar and a fraud. No copyright needed.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Legally you are allowed to lie, also it isn’t fraud. So posting that is perfectly legal for a public domain work and the only thing preventing you from doing with someone alive right now is copyright.
    - simbolit 3y ago
      "the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Retric 3y ago
        That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law preventing some type of action is a rather silly premise, people constantly break laws. Laws moderate behavior so they at best prevent specific incidents instead of totally eliminating specific behaviors.
justanotherjoe 3y ago
The creation of information is a divine thing, information lasts until humanity itself goes extinct. The very first concept created by our caveman ancestor we still use today. Copying is easy. Creating is hard. Even something as simple as creating an original name is really hard, let alone making entire movies and video games. I actually think intellectual property is the single best thing humanity had done, precisely because otherwise there is no movies, there is no games, why would there be. Although I agree it shouldn't last forever.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  In case I haven’t already made it clear enough in the comment you replied to - whether I believe in something or not doesn’t depend on who would benefit from it. But to answer the question, you use proprietary software protected by means other than government force every single day.

gumballindie 3y ago

You do realise that if people’s intellectual work is not protected there wont be any intellectual work left, right? Why would i create something knowing you can just grab it and use it? Communism did the same to physical property, where you didnt own much and everything belonged to everyone. That didnt end particularly well because people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation. Sure you can use it, but according to the terms and conditions of the owner. Same goes for owning objects. You can use my car if i let you use my car.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
And if there was no slavery we wouldn’t have any pyramids. I don’t care. You don’t have the right to an idea, a sound or a particular arrangement of pixels. That’s not communism because nothing is being taken from you. I don’t owe you any terms and conditions to something you don’t own.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Well, by law, i do and you do owe me royalties. Hopefully these people hire better lawyers next time. Also people tend to get upset when their ownership of things is violated, pixels or otherwise.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    Sure then, by law I could have had slaves too. Glad you’re honest about the side of history you sit on.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      The concept of intellectual property came about at the same time that slavery was fading away. Essentially at the time when people progressed into something better than basic primates that thought enslaving one another is a good idea. So technically speaking advocates for the abolition of copyright are projecting a reversal of progress. I want actual ai that actually learns and that doesnt rely on brute forcing simulated intelligence using a clever mix of people’s ideas. By tolerating this fakery you are really just handing over the bastardisation of the holy grail of tech - ai - to a handful of grifters who’s success relies on taking what’s mine for free and giving it to others for a fee. At scale and with government protection.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Irrelevant. You said “it’s the law”. I responded with “it’s the law”. You lack consistency, more at 12. I already made it clear in my original comment that unlike you, my position on IP holds universally and not just in situations that benefit me. The fact that you continue to try to argue how beneficial it would be to have IP makes me believe that you simply do not care about being consistent, so I’d like to hear it from you personally. You believe in IP when it comes to stopping AI but not when it prevents you from pirating, agree or disagree? If I don’t get a one word answer I’ll answer for you.
        gumballindie 3y ago
        I dont care about what holds universally “true” in some peole’s minds about _my_ property. That’s communism. I am an individual therefore i care about _my_ ownership. Communism wanted to make everything belong to everyone. Philosophical darwinism proved that that concept is wrong. What’s mine is mine, period. I never pirate software and no, I dont think piracy is a good idea either. I believe in open source and that human knowledge should he free in the sense of librem but i equally believe that that should be according to terms and conditions. So i, as a human, would like to read and understand your idea but if you dont wish to grant me the right to monetise it - sure.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Do you think the creator of a piece of art has any rights whatsoever? You're basically endorsing the idea that if you stumble across some original work that you're able to make a copy of, there's nothing wrong with falsely declaring yourself the author of it and collecting money from anyone you can trick into believing this.
  - alphanullmeric 3y ago
    You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels. Do you believe copying is force? That’s a yes or no question, and if I don’t get a yes or no answer then I’ll answer for you.
    - ChadNauseam 3y ago
      > You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels. This just sounds like your opinion, why do you think this? I really like that people can profitably write books and make movies and I think some force to allow that to happen seems reasonable.
      - alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Of course it’s my opinion that force is only justified in response to force, disagree?
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      I reject your whole premise here, as many thefts can occur without force, and many legal remedies are imposed without force. You're just ducking the question; it seems you're saying that 'no, you don't have any rights that you can enforce in court.' You'd probably object to extralegal enforcement on the basis that it violates the NAP or some other glibertarian trope.
- astrange 3y ago
  The pyramids weren't built by slaves. The ones in Egypt at least.
zirgs 3y ago
Copyright activists really lost a lot of respect because of those silly music industry lawsuits, the mickey mouse protection act, software patents of trivial stuff and the like. This lawsuit is even sillier than the previous ones.
kstrauser 3y ago
Thank god copyright came along and gave us Shakespeare, Bach, da Vinci, Chaucer, Beethoven… And can you imagine life without the wheel? Too bad we didn’t invent patents earlier so that we could’ve gotten a head start inventing it and the spear.
- simbolit 3y ago
  Fire was copyrighted by humans, that's why the other apes can't use it.
kmeisthax 3y ago
This is how moneyheads think the world works: that everything is a series of monetary incentives to be linked together to make an end result. Most humans don't actually think this way, and in specific a LOT of creative work is made without calculating exactly what the profit is going to be. This doesn't mean that artists don't want to be paid, but that artists focus on making their work first and monetizing it later. What copyright actually protects is creative industry. By assigning individualized monopolies over copying and reproduction, the publishing industry can persistently lowball the shit out of artists (who themselves undervalue their work, see above) and then reap the profits for themselves. Since the vast majority of creative work would never see market interest, it's cheaper to pay billions of dollars to the handful of known, recognizable, and marketable mega-successes than to pay smaller amounts to a far larger pool of mid-list or unknown artists. This is why unions exist in basically every creative industry: otherwise, nobody below the talent line[0] gets paid. To put a finer point on it: right now, the unions are doing a way better job of protecting human artists against AI art than copyright is. The argument for training AI being infringing is very weak in the general case where there's no obvious regurgitation. I mean, where does your copyrighted material even 'live' in the model, if the model can't even reproduce it? However, unions can very easily just say "you can't force us to cut corners by using this tool" in their negotiations and actually get that result. Furthermore, those rulings only bind publishers that hire artists. The artists themselves can still use AI when it makes sense in their workflow, rather than when publishers think they can cheap out on shit. The failures of Soviet communism are complicated, but if you had to boil it down to one factor, I would not summarize it as "communal ownership bad" or "collectivism bad". Collective action has its place. Furthermore, the analogy you're making between copyright and physical property is flawed[1]. The reason why physical property ownership even exists is because of scarcity - the reason why I need permission to use your car is because you can't use your car if I'm also using it. The irony of your communism analogy is that copyright is specifically used to erode ownership in private property in a way that makes the communism haters cry communism. There's a novel form of copyright misuse as a business model in which you put software in a thing that used to not require software, call it "smart", and then use the software to enforce your own idea of what "owning" the product means, backed up by the same laws that make it illegal to copy DVDs. There are a LOT of people who would like to go back to owning their cars and computers again, and that requires rolling back copyright, not strengthening it. [0] Hollywood-ism for "people whose contribution to the work is not marketable" [1] And, I suspect, a by-product of having read a bunch of Ayn Rand nonsense
vortegne 3y ago
"people inherently want to own things, especially the output of their own creation". That is the founding idea of communism indeed. I'm not sure you understand anything about it.

czl 3y ago

Say someone takes your written work (say your online comments, any articles, blogs etc) and claims it as their own. You still have a copy of your work but now your audience the authorship is in doubt. Would you be against this happening to you? What are your thoughts about plagiarism? How is this different from "copyright"?

simbolit 3y ago
You are straw-manning. Imagine you encounter a public domain image (which by definition is not protected by copyright), you download it, and put it on your website. Perfectly fine. But if you write "I made this image" below it, you are a liar and a fraud. No copyright needed.
- Retric 3y ago
  Legally you are allowed to lie, also it isn’t fraud. So posting that is perfectly legal for a public domain work and the only thing preventing you from doing with someone alive right now is copyright.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    "the only thing preventing you..." Wtf? No! I am allowed to lie. But I don't. What is preventing me? What is preventing you from lying. The law is n the only force guiding human actions.... You can be a liar and a fraud even without doing illegal things. This isn't controversial, is it?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 3y ago
      That’s a massive reading comprehension fail on your part. The context of a statement is critical in understanding it’s meaning. It’s obvious both from the statement and the preceding ones that what’s being argued is the legality of specific actions. Quoting a tiny fragment of text and reacting in isolation to those words is reacting at imaginary ideas disconnected from what was actually said. Also, the idea of a law preventing some type of action is a rather silly premise, people constantly break laws. Laws moderate behavior so they at best prevent specific incidents instead of totally eliminating specific behaviors.

justanotherjoe 3y ago

The creation of information is a divine thing, information lasts until humanity itself goes extinct. The very first concept created by our caveman ancestor we still use today. Copying is easy. Creating is hard. Even something as simple as creating an original name is really hard, let alone making entire movies and video games. I actually think intellectual property is the single best thing humanity had done, precisely because otherwise there is no movies, there is no games, why would there be. Although I agree it shouldn't last forever.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
In case I haven’t already made it clear enough in the comment you replied to - whether I believe in something or not doesn’t depend on who would benefit from it. But to answer the question, you use proprietary software protected by means other than government force every single day.