6 ms·

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. Tha

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.
    - lsaferite 3y ago
      I find this whole exchange silly, but I would point out that you said: > 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. Wouldn't that suggest that at the point in time where we move past IP we are _also_ progressing to a new stage in humanity?
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.

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.
  - lsaferite 3y ago
    I find this whole exchange silly, but I would point out that you said: > 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. Wouldn't that suggest that at the point in time where we move past IP we are _also_ progressing to a new stage in humanity?

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.