4 ms·

You seem to mix a lot. The first part is pseudo-argument. You compare apples and oranges. You treat education and massive steal of IP the same. The second par

You seem to mix a lot. The first part is pseudo-argument. You compare apples and oranges. You treat education and massive steal of IP the same. The second part seems to be a religious rehash of "The world keeps getting better as technology advances" this is not something guaranteed to continue and the world is not getting better from everyone. You seem to "overfit". The third part does not guarantee a sustainable income for human creativity. Again your argument is shallow at best.

photoGrant 3y ago
I'll simplify this for everyone; (misquoted you originally, sorry!) If you take a box and fill it with dog shit. You're more than welcome to chop, blend, dilute, fling or even eat this shit. But in the end, it's still Pepper's Poop. Sell it like it isn't. Add sprinkles. It's Pepper's Poop. When Pepper dies. Do you think the model is going to invent Gold all of a sudden?
xscott 3y ago
IP is a fiction we created to encourage artists to create. Arguably it was a trade off where we encourage producers of creative works by giving them a limited monopoly for the benefit of the consumers. IP is a price we paid for the benefit of consumers. It's not an inalienable right. As for sustainable incomes, I'm sure you heard the arguments about buggy-whip manufacturers going out of business when we got trains and cars. It really wasn't that much of a tragedy in the big picture of things.
- photoGrant 3y ago
  Who is 'we' in your arguments. Master? And why do you think laws exist? It's to protect the rich from being burned at the stake by reality. Societal agreements go both ways. You think it's to feign appeasement to the little piggie complaints and get them back to growing for your market day? You continue to dehumanise 'them' -- your neighbour into nothing more than an idiot who takes from your bottom line. Humans aren't a one way street to a compute problem, friend.
  - xscott 3y ago
    I'm going to ignore everything that sounds too weird to address. Philosophy major? Drinking on a Tuesday? As for laws, we're almost in agreement. People want to argue about rights, but it seems to me the rules are a lot more about control. I could ramble on quite a bit about corruption at every level from local police to federal politicians. ... to copyright enforcement. However, most of the rules were made before the current batch of super rich people got super rich, so there's something oversimplified in thinking it's just about protecting wealth. My bottom line? Compute problem? Whatever. I think the rest is just more weirdness I can't make sense of.
    - photoGrant 3y ago
      This is exhausting. Just read a history book. Yes, power started with families. Then big families - kings and queens and y'know, we slowly but surely woke up to being a kinder humanity not a more brutal one. You'd have thought. Art major. I don't drink. I debate hard ideas.
      - xscott 3y ago
        Well, since we agree the laws aren't about right or wrong, I guess you can appeal your case to the rich.
        photoGrant 3y ago
        Yes. Master.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

photoGrant 3y ago

I'll simplify this for everyone; (misquoted you originally, sorry!) If you take a box and fill it with dog shit. You're more than welcome to chop, blend, dilute, fling or even eat this shit. But in the end, it's still Pepper's Poop. Sell it like it isn't. Add sprinkles. It's Pepper's Poop. When Pepper dies. Do you think the model is going to invent Gold all of a sudden?

xscott 3y ago

IP is a fiction we created to encourage artists to create. Arguably it was a trade off where we encourage producers of creative works by giving them a limited monopoly for the benefit of the consumers. IP is a price we paid for the benefit of consumers. It's not an inalienable right. As for sustainable incomes, I'm sure you heard the arguments about buggy-whip manufacturers going out of business when we got trains and cars. It really wasn't that much of a tragedy in the big picture of things.

photoGrant 3y ago
Who is 'we' in your arguments. Master? And why do you think laws exist? It's to protect the rich from being burned at the stake by reality. Societal agreements go both ways. You think it's to feign appeasement to the little piggie complaints and get them back to growing for your market day? You continue to dehumanise 'them' -- your neighbour into nothing more than an idiot who takes from your bottom line. Humans aren't a one way street to a compute problem, friend.
- xscott 3y ago
  I'm going to ignore everything that sounds too weird to address. Philosophy major? Drinking on a Tuesday? As for laws, we're almost in agreement. People want to argue about rights, but it seems to me the rules are a lot more about control. I could ramble on quite a bit about corruption at every level from local police to federal politicians. ... to copyright enforcement. However, most of the rules were made before the current batch of super rich people got super rich, so there's something oversimplified in thinking it's just about protecting wealth. My bottom line? Compute problem? Whatever. I think the rest is just more weirdness I can't make sense of.
  - photoGrant 3y ago
    This is exhausting. Just read a history book. Yes, power started with families. Then big families - kings and queens and y'know, we slowly but surely woke up to being a kinder humanity not a more brutal one. You'd have thought. Art major. I don't drink. I debate hard ideas.
    - xscott 3y ago
      Well, since we agree the laws aren't about right or wrong, I guess you can appeal your case to the rich.
      - photoGrant 3y ago
        Yes. Master.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]