3 ms·

...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "

by jMyles 11mo ago

...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law".

pseudalopex 11mo ago
Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. > And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law". What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply?
- jMyles 11mo ago
  > Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. The point is: the difference is a legal fiction which necessarily prohibits general-purpose computing. If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. > What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply? Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. If a law requires the state to intrude into your personal, intimate computing process - whether the biological process in your brain or an electronic one in your computer - then that's a very strong indication that the law is not a legitimate intervention on behalf of the rights of others.
  - pseudalopex 11mo ago
    > The point is: the difference is a legal fiction The point was it was not. > If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. Observing, recording, and processing are different words with different meanings. Repeating your assertion they are the same did not make it more persuasive. > Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. Copyright laws regulated copying always. There are arguments for copyright abolition worth considering. It is impossible to separate activities almost everyone but you can separate and separates is not.
  - rootusrootus 11mo ago
    > If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. You can capture photons with your eyes, and you can use an image sensor to capture photons. Seems pretty equivalent. But your brain cannot store images or recall them in the future (even for yourself, it is a very lossy recall), or transmit them to another person, etc. That is all completely separate functionality that is not equivalent to what your brain can do.
    - jMyles 11mo ago
      So if I have an implant that encodes and digitally records impulses on my optic nerve, allowing me to replay and share things I have previously seen, then can the law justly require me to avert my eyes as the emperor walks past? Obviously not. And what of the martian who uses a very powerful telescope to record public activities of earthlings - do our laws extend to her? Do we own the photons that bounce off of our skin unto the ends of reality? Obviously, totally not. That's not how any of this works. You're allowed to capture photons. You are built with devices that do just say. And you're allowed to build other devices to do that.
      - jakelazaroff 11mo ago
        > And what of the martian who uses a very powerful telescope to record public activities of earthlings - do our laws extend to her? Do we own the photons that bounce off of our skin unto the ends of reality? Obviously, totally not. That's not how any of this works. Martians don't exist, so yeah, of course that's not how anything works!
      - rootusrootus 11mo ago
        > can the law justly require me to avert my eyes as the emperor walks past? Given that you chose to get the implant, I'd say the answer is yes. What you have done is no different than walking around with a camera and taking pictures of everything your eyes point at. So it can be regulated the same way. > And what of the martian If she sets foot in our jurisdiction, then she's toast.

by jMyles 11mo ago

...I mean, sure, I'll argue that copyright laws are illegitimate on this basis. And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law".

pseudalopex 11mo ago

Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. > And it's beyond obvious at this point that the internet doesn't abide by this "law". What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply?

jMyles 11mo ago
> Not wanting laws to reflect a difference does not mean a difference does not exist. The point is: the difference is a legal fiction which necessarily prohibits general-purpose computing. If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. > What law? Copyright? Why the punctuation? And what did you intend this to imply? Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. If a law requires the state to intrude into your personal, intimate computing process - whether the biological process in your brain or an electronic one in your computer - then that's a very strong indication that the law is not a legitimate intervention on behalf of the rights of others.
- pseudalopex 11mo ago
  > The point is: the difference is a legal fiction The point was it was not. > If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. Observing, recording, and processing are different words with different meanings. Repeating your assertion they are the same did not make it more persuasive. > Yes, I don't think copyright laws are a legitimate role for state power in the information age. And if the argument is, "well, look copyright laws require prohibitions on collecting or copying data or any other general purpose computing process", then that only makes the case stronger, not weaker. Copyright laws regulated copying always. There are arguments for copyright abolition worth considering. It is impossible to separate activities almost everyone but you can separate and separates is not.
- rootusrootus 11mo ago
  > If I can capture photons with my eyes, but then I try to do it with a machine, and you say, "hey, you can't use a machine for that!" then you are telling me that I can't engage in general purpose computing. You can capture photons with your eyes, and you can use an image sensor to capture photons. Seems pretty equivalent. But your brain cannot store images or recall them in the future (even for yourself, it is a very lossy recall), or transmit them to another person, etc. That is all completely separate functionality that is not equivalent to what your brain can do.
  - jMyles 11mo ago
    So if I have an implant that encodes and digitally records impulses on my optic nerve, allowing me to replay and share things I have previously seen, then can the law justly require me to avert my eyes as the emperor walks past? Obviously not. And what of the martian who uses a very powerful telescope to record public activities of earthlings - do our laws extend to her? Do we own the photons that bounce off of our skin unto the ends of reality? Obviously, totally not. That's not how any of this works. You're allowed to capture photons. You are built with devices that do just say. And you're allowed to build other devices to do that.
    - jakelazaroff 11mo ago
      > And what of the martian who uses a very powerful telescope to record public activities of earthlings - do our laws extend to her? Do we own the photons that bounce off of our skin unto the ends of reality? Obviously, totally not. That's not how any of this works. Martians don't exist, so yeah, of course that's not how anything works!
    - rootusrootus 11mo ago
      > can the law justly require me to avert my eyes as the emperor walks past? Given that you chose to get the implant, I'd say the answer is yes. What you have done is no different than walking around with a camera and taking pictures of everything your eyes point at. So it can be regulated the same way. > And what of the martian If she sets foot in our jurisdiction, then she's toast.