4 ms·

No patents then, either, right? What about licensing regimes, be it for professions or for things like resources extraction? They also create artificial scarcit

No patents then, either, right? What about licensing regimes, be it for professions or for things like resources extraction? They also create artificial scarcity. Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts.

andy99 3y ago
> Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts. That doesn't make it right. At least that's closer to a logical counterargument. Artificial scarcity, as a byproduct, could make sense if it's in the service of some greater good. Certification for doctors is probably a good example. For real estate agents, maybe not. Taxi medallion quotas definitely not. There are lots of cartel-like certifications that are not helping anyone. Copyright, like government mandated certifications, is another form of scarcity, the supporting argument I'm aware of is that it spurs innovation and creativity, not the labor theory of value stuff I'm seeing discussed. I don't believe that copyright results in more creative work and so I don't see it as an acceptable tradeoff, especially given the way it gives advantages to bigger companies and wealthier people. I think it would be a valid argument to try and show that it really did result in a more creative and innovative society.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  There is a fair amount of research out there on the effects of copyright and patents. From my casual observation, it feels murky as far as causal relationships go, but then it is not a field I actively study. The effects are also not independent of the actual implementation of IP rights - it can help or hinder and there might be some optimal setup. I certainly wouldn't dismiss that there could be a copyright implementation that is net helpful for fostering creativity and innovation.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  “I think it would be a valid argument to [do impossible thing given there is no control case]” Alternatively, you can just realize that copyright exists to retain incentive to create and share creative work. AI’s entire value prop in this domain, quite explicitly, is to obviate the need for artists to be doing the art. That is incentive destruction. You can observe that artists tend not to publish work directly into public domain despite always having the ability. You can observe that most art people actually consume is made by professional artists. It’s not hard to connect the dots when one steps outside of their own ridiculous sense of entitlement to profit off others’ work. I’d respect the anti-copyright view a whole lot more if they just came out and said it: “I deserve to be able to profit off other people’s labor without paying them.”
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Control cases of sorts have existed at times (e.g., UK vs Germany in the 19th century), and at least some point to net negative effects of copyright systems, but as I wrote below, the overall body of research seems much less clear one way or the other.

andy99 3y ago

> Pretty sure there is much more business that is in one form or another related to artificial scarcity of sorts. That doesn't make it right. At least that's closer to a logical counterargument. Artificial scarcity, as a byproduct, could make sense if it's in the service of some greater good. Certification for doctors is probably a good example. For real estate agents, maybe not. Taxi medallion quotas definitely not. There are lots of cartel-like certifications that are not helping anyone. Copyright, like government mandated certifications, is another form of scarcity, the supporting argument I'm aware of is that it spurs innovation and creativity, not the labor theory of value stuff I'm seeing discussed. I don't believe that copyright results in more creative work and so I don't see it as an acceptable tradeoff, especially given the way it gives advantages to bigger companies and wealthier people. I think it would be a valid argument to try and show that it really did result in a more creative and innovative society.

RandomLensman 3y ago
There is a fair amount of research out there on the effects of copyright and patents. From my casual observation, it feels murky as far as causal relationships go, but then it is not a field I actively study. The effects are also not independent of the actual implementation of IP rights - it can help or hinder and there might be some optimal setup. I certainly wouldn't dismiss that there could be a copyright implementation that is net helpful for fostering creativity and innovation.
ethanbond 3y ago
“I think it would be a valid argument to [do impossible thing given there is no control case]” Alternatively, you can just realize that copyright exists to retain incentive to create and share creative work. AI’s entire value prop in this domain, quite explicitly, is to obviate the need for artists to be doing the art. That is incentive destruction. You can observe that artists tend not to publish work directly into public domain despite always having the ability. You can observe that most art people actually consume is made by professional artists. It’s not hard to connect the dots when one steps outside of their own ridiculous sense of entitlement to profit off others’ work. I’d respect the anti-copyright view a whole lot more if they just came out and said it: “I deserve to be able to profit off other people’s labor without paying them.”
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Control cases of sorts have existed at times (e.g., UK vs Germany in the 19th century), and at least some point to net negative effects of copyright systems, but as I wrote below, the overall body of research seems much less clear one way or the other.