6 ms·

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

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.
        Jotra7 3y ago
        [dead]
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Pixels, sounds and ideas aren't your property. That has nothing to do with communism. Force is only justified in response to force, and you've still yet to prove that my copying of your ideas is forceful enough to warrant government intervention.
      - eindiran 3y ago
        This notion that the creators and artists are raking up the wealth generated by people consuming their creations is obviously wrong. Intellectual property in general, but especially copyright, has been a colossal failure -- rent-seeking middlemen have emerged to swallow up the financial dividends of the creative. The idea that someone can sell access to your work without you being rewarded is ALREADY how things work. Copyright as it stands is just a way to give rent-seeking middlemen a moat, not a protection for creatives.
- 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.

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.
        Jotra7 3y ago
        [dead]
        alphanullmeric 3y ago
        Pixels, sounds and ideas aren't your property. That has nothing to do with communism. Force is only justified in response to force, and you've still yet to prove that my copying of your ideas is forceful enough to warrant government intervention.
    - eindiran 3y ago
      This notion that the creators and artists are raking up the wealth generated by people consuming their creations is obviously wrong. Intellectual property in general, but especially copyright, has been a colossal failure -- rent-seeking middlemen have emerged to swallow up the financial dividends of the creative. The idea that someone can sell access to your work without you being rewarded is ALREADY how things work. Copyright as it stands is just a way to give rent-seeking middlemen a moat, not a protection for creatives.
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.