4 ms·

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?

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?