5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property I don't even know what my personal stance on piracy is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property I don't even know what my personal stance on piracy is but the subject is clearly more complex than saying that theft applies only to physical objects.

tkfu 3y ago
Yes, but people are allowed to express a strong opinion on a complex subject without also specifically mentioning all the caveats and possible counter-arguments to their position. By all means argue back and add the nuance you think is missing, but it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to just say "ah, but it's more complicated than that".
- Trombone12 3y ago
  Uh, surely "I know it is more complicated but I will not mention that" is the lazy stance?
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Posting to HN is not like writing a finalized spec or publishing an academic paper. It’s ok to ignore complicated edge cases and speak in generalities. Nobody expects commenters to 100% cover every issue with every post.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - sebastien_b 3y ago
      [dead]
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
      You’re like 12 similes deep at this point. Please just call things what they are.
amelius 3y ago
You are confusing what they think is justice with what some people have decided is justice.
dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
I remember one RMS lecture that made me think. He pointed out that the so-called "intellectual property" doesn't really exist. What exists are certain laws, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and so on. Each of these recognizes the benefit to society of temporary restriction of freedom of others to use the ideas that were invented/transmitted by others.
- Trombone12 3y ago
  You can just drop "intellectual" and there will be no fundamental change to the argument, it's only the name of the laws defining "property" that change.
  - tbrownaw 3y ago
    You seem to be missing that my laptop existing is an objective fact rather than a logical argument.
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      Yes, but the association of that laptop with yourself as an owner is an abstract idea. Many mammals do not have such ideas of ownership as an exclusive right, though many will defend territory, mates, and offspring.
      - jonhohle 3y ago
        It can not be understated how foundational exclusive property rights are to modern society and technological advancement. Since at least the Magna Carta it’s considered a human right. The US Declaration of Independence almost enumerated property as an inalienable right in place of the pursuit of happiness. How could I have forgotten: the idea of personal property is also essential to Jewish law, predating the Magna Carta by another 2,000 years. That’s at least 3,000 years of at least a portion of humans placing value on private property.
        3y ago
fmbb 3y ago
The fact that some powerful organizations are trying to complicate a matter does not make it complicated per se. In my country the law criminalizing theft begins thus: > Stöld > Stöld beskrivs i 8 kap. 1 §. Stöldbrottet förekommer i tre allvarlighetsvarianter: > * Ringa stöld (tidigare snatteri): 8 kap 2 § > * Stöld: 8 kap 1 § > * Grov stöld: 8 kap 4 § > Skyddsintresset vid stöld är äganderätten. Endast lösa saker samt del till fast egendom kan ägas. The third sentence defines property as physical. Reading texts on international property rights it’s always quite clear what everyone is talking about. “Intellectual property” is sometimes mentioned as an aside with an extra caveat that it is not widely recognized.
simbolit 3y ago
If you want to know how bullshit intellectual "property" is, ask the simple question of who owns the personal information the ad company collected about me? Of course, the ad company owns it, because of their hard intellectual work of collecting it. Me? No, why would I own information about me? What logic of property is this?
- nox100 3y ago
  If you come to my restaurant isn't in my info that you walked in my door, sat at my table, ordered my food? Why do you think it's your info? When two interact both sides get to remember the interaction.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    The question is not if you can "remember" it. That is not what ownership in personal information is about. The question is whether you can __sell__ the information that I had three double cheese burgers and extra greasy fries to my health insurance provider.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      You still own the information. You can retain a lot of all your restaurant visits and order history and sell that if you want to.
  - brookst 3y ago
    The question is whether you own information about their food choices that you can sell to a third party without even telling the customer it was collected. On the one hand, it seems obvious that you have a right to observe, collect data, and sell it. On the other hand, ick.
    - seanp2k2 3y ago
      Just ask TV and car manufacturers who collect telemetry about absolutely everything you do with their products and probably everything that happens on your connected phone and/or wifi network too.

tkfu 3y ago

Yes, but people are allowed to express a strong opinion on a complex subject without also specifically mentioning all the caveats and possible counter-arguments to their position. By all means argue back and add the nuance you think is missing, but it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to just say "ah, but it's more complicated than that".

Trombone12 3y ago
Uh, surely "I know it is more complicated but I will not mention that" is the lazy stance?
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Posting to HN is not like writing a finalized spec or publishing an academic paper. It’s ok to ignore complicated edge cases and speak in generalities. Nobody expects commenters to 100% cover every issue with every post.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sebastien_b 3y ago
    [dead]
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
    You’re like 12 similes deep at this point. Please just call things what they are.

amelius 3y ago

You are confusing what they think is justice with what some people have decided is justice.

dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago

I remember one RMS lecture that made me think. He pointed out that the so-called "intellectual property" doesn't really exist. What exists are certain laws, such as patents, copyright, trademarks and so on. Each of these recognizes the benefit to society of temporary restriction of freedom of others to use the ideas that were invented/transmitted by others.

Trombone12 3y ago
You can just drop "intellectual" and there will be no fundamental change to the argument, it's only the name of the laws defining "property" that change.
- tbrownaw 3y ago
  You seem to be missing that my laptop existing is an objective fact rather than a logical argument.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    Yes, but the association of that laptop with yourself as an owner is an abstract idea. Many mammals do not have such ideas of ownership as an exclusive right, though many will defend territory, mates, and offspring.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      It can not be understated how foundational exclusive property rights are to modern society and technological advancement. Since at least the Magna Carta it’s considered a human right. The US Declaration of Independence almost enumerated property as an inalienable right in place of the pursuit of happiness. How could I have forgotten: the idea of personal property is also essential to Jewish law, predating the Magna Carta by another 2,000 years. That’s at least 3,000 years of at least a portion of humans placing value on private property.
      - 3y ago

fmbb 3y ago

The fact that some powerful organizations are trying to complicate a matter does not make it complicated per se. In my country the law criminalizing theft begins thus: > Stöld > Stöld beskrivs i 8 kap. 1 §. Stöldbrottet förekommer i tre allvarlighetsvarianter: > * Ringa stöld (tidigare snatteri): 8 kap 2 § > * Stöld: 8 kap 1 § > * Grov stöld: 8 kap 4 § > Skyddsintresset vid stöld är äganderätten. Endast lösa saker samt del till fast egendom kan ägas. The third sentence defines property as physical. Reading texts on international property rights it’s always quite clear what everyone is talking about. “Intellectual property” is sometimes mentioned as an aside with an extra caveat that it is not widely recognized.

simbolit 3y ago

If you want to know how bullshit intellectual "property" is, ask the simple question of who owns the personal information the ad company collected about me? Of course, the ad company owns it, because of their hard intellectual work of collecting it. Me? No, why would I own information about me? What logic of property is this?

nox100 3y ago
If you come to my restaurant isn't in my info that you walked in my door, sat at my table, ordered my food? Why do you think it's your info? When two interact both sides get to remember the interaction.
- simbolit 3y ago
  The question is not if you can "remember" it. That is not what ownership in personal information is about. The question is whether you can __sell__ the information that I had three double cheese burgers and extra greasy fries to my health insurance provider.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    You still own the information. You can retain a lot of all your restaurant visits and order history and sell that if you want to.
- brookst 3y ago
  The question is whether you own information about their food choices that you can sell to a third party without even telling the customer it was collected. On the one hand, it seems obvious that you have a right to observe, collect data, and sell it. On the other hand, ick.
  - seanp2k2 3y ago
    Just ask TV and car manufacturers who collect telemetry about absolutely everything you do with their products and probably everything that happens on your connected phone and/or wifi network too.