8 ms·

> "this is why we can't have nice things" Of course, it'll be used, but that's just a bad, bad argument at any level.

by kayo_20211030 2y ago

try_the_bass 2y ago
It really isn't, though? The Tragedy of the Commons is a real thing that affects real resources every day?
- kayo_20211030 2y ago
  I think we're in agreement. The "that's why we can't have nice things" argument happens at the end when traffic cams' public access is taken away because some clever soul found a novel use for the publicly available information (i.e. taking selfies), and the authorities were put out by it. So, public information gets locked down on spurious grounds, and the same clever soul is wrongly blamed for it. That's not fair, but someone will say ".. and that's why we can't have nice things", and others will say "yeah. that guy ruined it for everyone". It's a bad argument as it ends up putting the blame on the wrong party.
  - try_the_bass 2y ago
    But in these cases, it is the "clever soul" who's to blame, especially if they cannot be legally restricted from being "clever". Like I said in another part of this thread: we should not be confounding "freely available" with "free to use without limitation". The various forms of open source licensing are testament to this concept: some things are indeed freely offered; others stipulate that you can't use them to make money without also offering your source code freely, etc. In both cases, the code is offered freely, but in the latter case, you're not legally allowed to use it without limitation. Public information is often taken down because it can't be limited in such ways, and it relies on an honor system of sorts. Once people stop being honorable, there is no other choice but to take the resource away. The fault there absolutely rests with the individuals that have violated the implicit honor system.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      There is nothing dishonorable in taking pictures of yourself. This clever soul is not acting outside reasonable limits, and should not be blamed.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        This "clever soul" is trying to monetize this work, and encouraging others to do the same, which is pretty sketch. It's pretty clear that the providers of a key piece of their endeavor aren't happy with them using the public infrastructure in this way. Is it not dishonorable to go against someone's wishes when they're providing something charitable?
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        When the public infrastructure is cameras that are constantly broadcasting the people nearby, and the use is saving a frame when you're one of the people nearby, no I do not see that as dishonorable. The intent of the provider only goes so far when it comes to super straightforward uses. And it's not a burden on the system. And if anything, now they're getting permission to take photos of that person in that moment (which is nice even if they don't personally make recordings of the broadcast).
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        I think the provider's concern is that a) it will become a burden on the system if this usage becomes widespread, and b) it encourages people to engage in risky behavior in order to have their image captured on one of these cameras. Both of these are valid arguments, which you seem to discount out of hand, as if the provider's concerns are inherently invalid. Let me flip the question: should anyone who captures an image of you in a public setting be free to monetize your likeness? If you are arguing that the provider's concerns and wishes are irrelevant, would that not also apply to every person who leaves the privacy of their own homes? That they, too, would have absolutely no say in how their likeness in public settings is used? I feel like we've already established a precedent that yes, you should have some say in how your likeness is used, even when it's captured in settings where you are freely putting it on display in public. Why does this not apply to other resources that are just as freely given?

> "this is why we can't have nice things" Of course, it'll be used, but that's just a bad, bad argument at any level.

try_the_bass 2y ago

It really isn't, though? The Tragedy of the Commons is a real thing that affects real resources every day?

kayo_20211030 2y ago
I think we're in agreement. The "that's why we can't have nice things" argument happens at the end when traffic cams' public access is taken away because some clever soul found a novel use for the publicly available information (i.e. taking selfies), and the authorities were put out by it. So, public information gets locked down on spurious grounds, and the same clever soul is wrongly blamed for it. That's not fair, but someone will say ".. and that's why we can't have nice things", and others will say "yeah. that guy ruined it for everyone". It's a bad argument as it ends up putting the blame on the wrong party.
- try_the_bass 2y ago
  But in these cases, it is the "clever soul" who's to blame, especially if they cannot be legally restricted from being "clever". Like I said in another part of this thread: we should not be confounding "freely available" with "free to use without limitation". The various forms of open source licensing are testament to this concept: some things are indeed freely offered; others stipulate that you can't use them to make money without also offering your source code freely, etc. In both cases, the code is offered freely, but in the latter case, you're not legally allowed to use it without limitation. Public information is often taken down because it can't be limited in such ways, and it relies on an honor system of sorts. Once people stop being honorable, there is no other choice but to take the resource away. The fault there absolutely rests with the individuals that have violated the implicit honor system.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    There is nothing dishonorable in taking pictures of yourself. This clever soul is not acting outside reasonable limits, and should not be blamed.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      This "clever soul" is trying to monetize this work, and encouraging others to do the same, which is pretty sketch. It's pretty clear that the providers of a key piece of their endeavor aren't happy with them using the public infrastructure in this way. Is it not dishonorable to go against someone's wishes when they're providing something charitable?
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        When the public infrastructure is cameras that are constantly broadcasting the people nearby, and the use is saving a frame when you're one of the people nearby, no I do not see that as dishonorable. The intent of the provider only goes so far when it comes to super straightforward uses. And it's not a burden on the system. And if anything, now they're getting permission to take photos of that person in that moment (which is nice even if they don't personally make recordings of the broadcast).
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        I think the provider's concern is that a) it will become a burden on the system if this usage becomes widespread, and b) it encourages people to engage in risky behavior in order to have their image captured on one of these cameras. Both of these are valid arguments, which you seem to discount out of hand, as if the provider's concerns are inherently invalid. Let me flip the question: should anyone who captures an image of you in a public setting be free to monetize your likeness? If you are arguing that the provider's concerns and wishes are irrelevant, would that not also apply to every person who leaves the privacy of their own homes? That they, too, would have absolutely no say in how their likeness in public settings is used? I feel like we've already established a precedent that yes, you should have some say in how your likeness is used, even when it's captured in settings where you are freely putting it on display in public. Why does this not apply to other resources that are just as freely given?