4 ms·

This is incredibly insulting as I have no desire to control ownership of thoughts. What is otherwise involved, is production, intent and actually, yes, copyrigh

This is incredibly insulting as I have no desire to control ownership of thoughts. What is otherwise involved, is production, intent and actually, yes, copyright. I have a case if the work I have released ends up in every Hilton Hotel Lobby. My concern extends beyond myself and to the countless photographers I hire who relinquish their rights to us. I have a duty to protect their moral requirements too... As a human, you know? This is wild.

quectophoton 3y ago
You're taking the word "thought" too literally. Presumably they're referring to "information", as in "bytes". Your best bet is probably looking up on topics related to DRM or anti-piracy in general.
- photoGrant 3y ago
  Well how else should it be taken? A thought, information, bytes are all semantically representing different shifting goalposts of what I was clearly not talking about. Copyright works that involve creation beyond a 'thought'. To derive it down to such is wrong and explicitly ignoring the point.
  - quectophoton 3y ago
    I mean this in a good way, but try not to miss the forest for the trees. Regardless of the process involved, the end result is (probably) either something digital or physical. And your message implies it's digital. OP's message brings into focus that if it's something that can be easily copied, you're probably out of luck, regardless of whether you agree on the choice of words or not. Because most of the time "digital" translates to "any people who wants to see it, literally needs to receive a copy". Hence the emphasis into your attempt to assert ownership over that copy that is already in possession of the other party, and the difficulty of trying to do that (which is what you want, if I interpreted your original post correctly). So it still boils down to either copyright or patents, and whether you're able to enforce it with more effectiveness than companies that have more money than some countries' GDP. EDIT: Also, check out stuff about first-sale doctrine[1] and how there's the possibility[2] of someone legally obtaining a digital license from you complying with your terms, but you not being able to enforce further restrictions on how they sell it afterwards (disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I might be misreading these things). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [2]: https://archive.ph/20130123101253/http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregvoakes/2012/07/03/european-courts-rule-in-favor-of-consumers-reselling-downloaded-games/ https://archive.ph/20130123101253/http://www.forbes.com/site...
    - photoGrant 3y ago
      You are still missing the point. My issue is putting my work on the free web is not a free license to vacuum it up. There is no consent. The umbridge I have is there is no way currently to know whether OpenAI has used your, or anyone's content, and where from. This is the fundamental issue I have -- how do I find out? I'm fully aware of the implications of replicant copies and the conversations around authenticity. Walter Benjamin discussed this in 1935. https://www.amazon.com/Work-Art-Age-Mechanical-Reproduction/dp/0359046398 https://www.amazon.com/Work-Art-Age-Mechanical-Reproduction/...
elmerfud 3y ago
A creative work is a thought that has become realized. So when you say you want to control your creative works to prevent its use in some way that you don't agree with, yes you are attempting to control the thoughts of others.
- photoGrant 3y ago
  If we are to reduce this to a vacuum in which we don't exist in a modern society with expectations and agreements, I'd accept your philosophising. Otherwise it's a distraction to the issue. No one has these arguments when their car is stolen. The purchase and disappearance of that car are nothing but manifestations of thoughts according to you.
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    You're contrived example is contrived and not at all a comparable thing, because a car first of all is not a thought it is physical property as opposed to this intellectual property. Property rights as in physical property rights have been a thing for as long as humans have formed into a society. This concept of intellectual property or the continued ownership of thoughts that you have released into the world have not been a concept since humans have formed societies. It is absolutely a legal fiction that has been created and it is a fairly modern development the idea that you can not only own a thought but continue to exert control over it post sale. Intellectual property rights attempt to exert continued control of the creator post sale or post delivery of that intellectual property. Even to the point of controlling that in the terms of selling it again it's saying that if I purchase your creative work I don't own that I can't control it I can't do what I want with it. Now if we relate this to your car example car companies have tried this nonsense and you know what it has failed miserably for them. We don't even have to use the idea of an automobile as an example because again it's not really comparable this manufactured thing. Instead we have a very analogous example that has happened in modern times relating to the sale of intellectual property. This comes in the form of books. Authors and publishers of books attempted to exert control of what they believe is their intellectual property post sale. Even to the point of restricting the sale of that book to another person. Even to the point of saying people couldn't modify said book and then sell that item again. This was all thrown out as laughably ridiculous because it is. Yet your argument is somehow you want to exert control of your thing when it's been sold or resold or resold again. This is an absolutely constructed legal fiction and I'm very confident you have lost the reason why society allowed this legal fiction to be constructed. Societies didn't come up with this concept of copyright and patents and ownership of intellectual property is a legal fiction because they thought it was a good idea for the creators to have some sort of orwellian control in the minds and thoughts and actions of people who chose to consume it. The reason for this is clearly stated when you study history it was so a creator could realize a profit from their work for a limited time to ensure that they would be encouraged to make more works. The key there is for a limited time it is not in perpetuity or effectively in perpetuity and it is not to continue to exercise control of it once it has been sold to another. It is the limited time function that we can say it must be sold but after a while this should return to the public good to enrich the public culture as a whole. Content creators seem to believe that they don't have to honor this deal because we've allowed it to be corrupted and twisted so that it is effectively an infinite thing where you can exercise infinite control over the actions of other people once you've sold it to them. They also seem to believe like you do that there is no bargain with society you have forgotten that it is a legal fiction to encourage you to create more but ultimately creative works are about enriching a society and a culture as a whole and so if those works never return to the culture and to the society at large there is no bargain anymore. Content creators have become Petty slumlord rent collectors who are simply regurgitating trash because they don't have to innovate because of this infinite copyright and this idea you can continue to exercise control over everything that you've ever put out into the world. If our patent system functions like our copyright system you wouldn't have 90% of the tools you use to create your content. And I don't have any great love for our patent system that has been twisted a bit but it has not gotten to the extent of the idiocracy that we have allowed the copyright system to turn into. Content creators are the court jesters but somehow it has been twisted into them thinking they're the king and so they're going to make the rules and edicts on how their content is used after it's given away. So absolutely your thoughts are only yours while they remain in your head. Once you share them society is okay with the bargain but not the bargain that you twisted it into. You're attempting to control and destroy a culture by thinking you can control other people and how they want to use the content you're creating. The hubris of someone like that is mind-boggling.

quectophoton 3y ago

You're taking the word "thought" too literally. Presumably they're referring to "information", as in "bytes". Your best bet is probably looking up on topics related to DRM or anti-piracy in general.

photoGrant 3y ago
Well how else should it be taken? A thought, information, bytes are all semantically representing different shifting goalposts of what I was clearly not talking about. Copyright works that involve creation beyond a 'thought'. To derive it down to such is wrong and explicitly ignoring the point.
- quectophoton 3y ago
  I mean this in a good way, but try not to miss the forest for the trees. Regardless of the process involved, the end result is (probably) either something digital or physical. And your message implies it's digital. OP's message brings into focus that if it's something that can be easily copied, you're probably out of luck, regardless of whether you agree on the choice of words or not. Because most of the time "digital" translates to "any people who wants to see it, literally needs to receive a copy". Hence the emphasis into your attempt to assert ownership over that copy that is already in possession of the other party, and the difficulty of trying to do that (which is what you want, if I interpreted your original post correctly). So it still boils down to either copyright or patents, and whether you're able to enforce it with more effectiveness than companies that have more money than some countries' GDP. EDIT: Also, check out stuff about first-sale doctrine[1] and how there's the possibility[2] of someone legally obtaining a digital license from you complying with your terms, but you not being able to enforce further restrictions on how they sell it afterwards (disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I might be misreading these things). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [2]: https://archive.ph/20130123101253/http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregvoakes/2012/07/03/european-courts-rule-in-favor-of-consumers-reselling-downloaded-games/ https://archive.ph/20130123101253/http://www.forbes.com/site...
  - photoGrant 3y ago
    You are still missing the point. My issue is putting my work on the free web is not a free license to vacuum it up. There is no consent. The umbridge I have is there is no way currently to know whether OpenAI has used your, or anyone's content, and where from. This is the fundamental issue I have -- how do I find out? I'm fully aware of the implications of replicant copies and the conversations around authenticity. Walter Benjamin discussed this in 1935. https://www.amazon.com/Work-Art-Age-Mechanical-Reproduction/dp/0359046398 https://www.amazon.com/Work-Art-Age-Mechanical-Reproduction/...

elmerfud 3y ago

A creative work is a thought that has become realized. So when you say you want to control your creative works to prevent its use in some way that you don't agree with, yes you are attempting to control the thoughts of others.

photoGrant 3y ago
If we are to reduce this to a vacuum in which we don't exist in a modern society with expectations and agreements, I'd accept your philosophising. Otherwise it's a distraction to the issue. No one has these arguments when their car is stolen. The purchase and disappearance of that car are nothing but manifestations of thoughts according to you.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  You're contrived example is contrived and not at all a comparable thing, because a car first of all is not a thought it is physical property as opposed to this intellectual property. Property rights as in physical property rights have been a thing for as long as humans have formed into a society. This concept of intellectual property or the continued ownership of thoughts that you have released into the world have not been a concept since humans have formed societies. It is absolutely a legal fiction that has been created and it is a fairly modern development the idea that you can not only own a thought but continue to exert control over it post sale. Intellectual property rights attempt to exert continued control of the creator post sale or post delivery of that intellectual property. Even to the point of controlling that in the terms of selling it again it's saying that if I purchase your creative work I don't own that I can't control it I can't do what I want with it. Now if we relate this to your car example car companies have tried this nonsense and you know what it has failed miserably for them. We don't even have to use the idea of an automobile as an example because again it's not really comparable this manufactured thing. Instead we have a very analogous example that has happened in modern times relating to the sale of intellectual property. This comes in the form of books. Authors and publishers of books attempted to exert control of what they believe is their intellectual property post sale. Even to the point of restricting the sale of that book to another person. Even to the point of saying people couldn't modify said book and then sell that item again. This was all thrown out as laughably ridiculous because it is. Yet your argument is somehow you want to exert control of your thing when it's been sold or resold or resold again. This is an absolutely constructed legal fiction and I'm very confident you have lost the reason why society allowed this legal fiction to be constructed. Societies didn't come up with this concept of copyright and patents and ownership of intellectual property is a legal fiction because they thought it was a good idea for the creators to have some sort of orwellian control in the minds and thoughts and actions of people who chose to consume it. The reason for this is clearly stated when you study history it was so a creator could realize a profit from their work for a limited time to ensure that they would be encouraged to make more works. The key there is for a limited time it is not in perpetuity or effectively in perpetuity and it is not to continue to exercise control of it once it has been sold to another. It is the limited time function that we can say it must be sold but after a while this should return to the public good to enrich the public culture as a whole. Content creators seem to believe that they don't have to honor this deal because we've allowed it to be corrupted and twisted so that it is effectively an infinite thing where you can exercise infinite control over the actions of other people once you've sold it to them. They also seem to believe like you do that there is no bargain with society you have forgotten that it is a legal fiction to encourage you to create more but ultimately creative works are about enriching a society and a culture as a whole and so if those works never return to the culture and to the society at large there is no bargain anymore. Content creators have become Petty slumlord rent collectors who are simply regurgitating trash because they don't have to innovate because of this infinite copyright and this idea you can continue to exercise control over everything that you've ever put out into the world. If our patent system functions like our copyright system you wouldn't have 90% of the tools you use to create your content. And I don't have any great love for our patent system that has been twisted a bit but it has not gotten to the extent of the idiocracy that we have allowed the copyright system to turn into. Content creators are the court jesters but somehow it has been twisted into them thinking they're the king and so they're going to make the rules and edicts on how their content is used after it's given away. So absolutely your thoughts are only yours while they remain in your head. Once you share them society is okay with the bargain but not the bargain that you twisted it into. You're attempting to control and destroy a culture by thinking you can control other people and how they want to use the content you're creating. The hubris of someone like that is mind-boggling.