6 ms·

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.

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.
      - xpe 3y ago
        Ah! I see another zinger. But I'm not trying to zing you. Frankly, I was trying to suss out how off-your-rocker you might be. I mentioned Orwell because I was trying to throw you a bone. I was trying to show that I was engaging with you: to find some conceptual connection to what you wrote. Looking back, this feels a little like the motte-and-bailey fallacy: you started off by making a ridiculous claim ("Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly"). Much later you "retreat" to calling it a metaphor. You might have known it was metaphor all along, but if so, why did you double down? Why persist? Again, I think there is high chance that you like the reaction you get. It seems to me that people often seek attention in this way. There is a downside: many people seeing the kind of language you used will think "loony!" and stop engaging. Attempting to convince people by exaggerated metaphor can of course work! But if it does, I don't think you really want to take credit for it. People that easily swayed are not a prize worth counting. Besides, if you only "win" someone's agreement by rhetoric, you can expect the next person will "win" that same mind by some subsequent emotional appeal. Careful choice of words might take longer but it has less blowback. Rhetoric is the fast food of persuasion. (Yes, I can use metaphor too!) Nothing personal. For years, I've attempted to discuss things with people that seem puzzling and/or stubborn. Thanks for discussing.

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.
    - xpe 3y ago
      Ah! I see another zinger. But I'm not trying to zing you. Frankly, I was trying to suss out how off-your-rocker you might be. I mentioned Orwell because I was trying to throw you a bone. I was trying to show that I was engaging with you: to find some conceptual connection to what you wrote. Looking back, this feels a little like the motte-and-bailey fallacy: you started off by making a ridiculous claim ("Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly"). Much later you "retreat" to calling it a metaphor. You might have known it was metaphor all along, but if so, why did you double down? Why persist? Again, I think there is high chance that you like the reaction you get. It seems to me that people often seek attention in this way. There is a downside: many people seeing the kind of language you used will think "loony!" and stop engaging. Attempting to convince people by exaggerated metaphor can of course work! But if it does, I don't think you really want to take credit for it. People that easily swayed are not a prize worth counting. Besides, if you only "win" someone's agreement by rhetoric, you can expect the next person will "win" that same mind by some subsequent emotional appeal. Careful choice of words might take longer but it has less blowback. Rhetoric is the fast food of persuasion. (Yes, I can use metaphor too!) Nothing personal. For years, I've attempted to discuss things with people that seem puzzling and/or stubborn. Thanks for discussing.