4 ms·

> I most certainly do mean to call out copyright as willful, but it's not a deception, at least not a successful one: everyone knows it is false. Unless I'm mi

by xpe 3y ago

> I most certainly do mean to call out copyright as willful, but it's not a deception, at least not a successful one: everyone knows it is false. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is not even wrong. What about copyright law is empirically false? Such a question is non-sensical. Your comment redefines the word "false" in a way that muddles understanding. You aren't alone -- some philosophers do this -- but it tends to confuse rather than clarify. I've developed antibodies for language abuse of this kind. Such language can even have the effect of making language charged and divisive. Many people understand the value of using the words _true_ and _false_ to apply to the assessment of _facts_. This is a useful convention. (To be clear, I'm not opposed to bending language when it is useful.) To give a usage example: a misguided law is not _false_. Such a statement is non-sensical. We have clear phrases for this kind of law, such poorly designed, having unintended consequences, etc. We could go further and say that a law is i.e. immoral or pointless. You are likely making those kinds of claims. By using those phrases, we can have a high-bandwidth conversation much more quickly.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
The very concept that a thing cannot be copied. That is the obvious falsehood that we are compelled to pretend is true. I don't see how any of that is muddled. I'm being as direct as I can with my words here. I'm talking about the very plain fact that art can be copied freely. For example, DRM software gives you encrypted content and the decryption key. Why bother? Because the end user is expected to pretend they are only able to use that decryption key once. This is patently false, but any user who decides not to play along is immediately labeled a "pirate". What vessel have they commandeered? The metaphorical right to copy. What will be enshrined in law next, the rights to hear and to see? Copyright law is poorly designed. It does have unintended consequences. It is immoral and pointless. To back these claims, all I must to do is show the absurdity that copyright is on the face of it.
- xpe 3y ago
  > The very concept that a thing cannot be copied. That is the obvious falsehood that we are compelled to pretend is true. No, copyright law does _not_ compel us to believe that things cannot be copied. Instead, it establishes consequence of illegal copying. I'm flabbergasted that you, so far, don't recognize a simple and foundational difference between "can" and "should".
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you?
    - xpe 3y ago
      > If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you? Lots, I'm sure. / Besides, this is a straw man. And it misses the point. I am opposed to your choice of language, not because I'm trying to "control" how you frame or prioritize things, but because it suggests a deep misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. You claimed that copyright law forces people to believe that one cannot copy things. This is ridiculous. I hope you can see this. Copyright law establishes probabilistic consequences for certain behaviors. Many people would view copyright law as being _normative_ (in that it defines right and wrong). I agree that it sets norms, even if I don't necessarily agree on the wisdom of the chosen norms. Laws are wise and just only to the extent they align to deeper principles. You and I probably agree with many of the downsides of copyright law, even if our final takes are different, but that's not very interesting. In another comment, I linked to some articles on the topic by legal experts. I truly hope no one cares very much about my or your points of view about copyright law; I hope people go and read something by the experts instead. Of course, I'm not saying they are infallible. But there is a huge between armchair commenters on HN and someone with hundreds of hours of focused study and experience actively debating with others at a similar level. Here is what is interesting to me: how have you ended up with these bizarre conceptualizations? Why are you sticking to them? Is it largely inertia and/or ego? I haven't ruled out a high degree of contrarianism as well. Perhaps even just wanting to get a reaction. Otherwise, you seem reasonable, so I'm puzzled. Another point: Are you familiar with Orwell's ideas of thoughtcrime? That would be an example of law and society attempting to force people to believe something. Even so, as we know from the novel, that twisted goal cannot be fully achieved even in a totalitarian society.
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        So first you declare my language choice unacceptable. Next, you ask me if I have read Orwell? Maybe it's time you had a refresh. There is a thing called metaphor, and it's totally legal.

by xpe 3y ago

thomastjeffery 3y ago

The very concept that a thing cannot be copied. That is the obvious falsehood that we are compelled to pretend is true. I don't see how any of that is muddled. I'm being as direct as I can with my words here. I'm talking about the very plain fact that art can be copied freely. For example, DRM software gives you encrypted content and the decryption key. Why bother? Because the end user is expected to pretend they are only able to use that decryption key once. This is patently false, but any user who decides not to play along is immediately labeled a "pirate". What vessel have they commandeered? The metaphorical right to copy. What will be enshrined in law next, the rights to hear and to see? Copyright law is poorly designed. It does have unintended consequences. It is immoral and pointless. To back these claims, all I must to do is show the absurdity that copyright is on the face of it.

xpe 3y ago
> The very concept that a thing cannot be copied. That is the obvious falsehood that we are compelled to pretend is true. No, copyright law does _not_ compel us to believe that things cannot be copied. Instead, it establishes consequence of illegal copying. I'm flabbergasted that you, so far, don't recognize a simple and foundational difference between "can" and "should".
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you?
  - xpe 3y ago
    > If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you? Lots, I'm sure. / Besides, this is a straw man. And it misses the point. I am opposed to your choice of language, not because I'm trying to "control" how you frame or prioritize things, but because it suggests a deep misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. You claimed that copyright law forces people to believe that one cannot copy things. This is ridiculous. I hope you can see this. Copyright law establishes probabilistic consequences for certain behaviors. Many people would view copyright law as being _normative_ (in that it defines right and wrong). I agree that it sets norms, even if I don't necessarily agree on the wisdom of the chosen norms. Laws are wise and just only to the extent they align to deeper principles. You and I probably agree with many of the downsides of copyright law, even if our final takes are different, but that's not very interesting. In another comment, I linked to some articles on the topic by legal experts. I truly hope no one cares very much about my or your points of view about copyright law; I hope people go and read something by the experts instead. Of course, I'm not saying they are infallible. But there is a huge between armchair commenters on HN and someone with hundreds of hours of focused study and experience actively debating with others at a similar level. Here is what is interesting to me: how have you ended up with these bizarre conceptualizations? Why are you sticking to them? Is it largely inertia and/or ego? I haven't ruled out a high degree of contrarianism as well. Perhaps even just wanting to get a reaction. Otherwise, you seem reasonable, so I'm puzzled. Another point: Are you familiar with Orwell's ideas of thoughtcrime? That would be an example of law and society attempting to force people to believe something. Even so, as we know from the novel, that twisted goal cannot be fully achieved even in a totalitarian society.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      So first you declare my language choice unacceptable. Next, you ask me if I have read Orwell? Maybe it's time you had a refresh. There is a thing called metaphor, and it's totally legal.