4 ms·

This is just straight up false. Laws don't cease to exist because of a liquidation. Legal rights absolutely matter in the event of a liquidation, and will be pa

This is just straight up false. Laws don't cease to exist because of a liquidation. Legal rights absolutely matter in the event of a liquidation, and will be part of any liquidation process. For example, if there was a law that the entire source code (including server code) should be immediately put into public domain if the game maker is unable to meet their obligation of serving up the game due to liquidation, then the release of the source code would be a legally sanctioned part of the liquidation process.

nradov 3mo ago
This is just straight up false. Apparently you don't understand bankruptcy law. Courts will prioritize the interests of creditors first. And the notion of a law requiring source code to be released in the public domain is so stupid. The source code is an asset which can potentially be sold to benefit creditors. And often the source code contains IP owned by third parties who wouldn't allow a release anyway.
- ndriscoll 3mo ago
  The law is what the people say it is. As the previous generation that created this system dies their successors can repeal eternal copyright laws and institute consumer protections again. e.g. we can demand source escrow to receive copyright (with a short grace period for current copyright holders to register/set up escrow), drastically shorten the period, demand copyrighted material continue to be made available or you lose your monopoly, etc. Or just abolish the whole system, which might completely lose its purpose if AI continues to improve. Actually companies might be doing this themselves on accident by using AI to generate assets, making them ineligible for copyright. All it takes is for young people to decide that they actually don't think they should have to pay a subscription to e.g. listen to music that came out when their dead great grandparents were kids or that they should have no rights to own anything ever. The same people whose student loans couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy could I'm sure consider the idea that companies' obligations to them can't be either.
  - nradov 3mo ago
    Nah. There's not going to be a law which expropriates someone else's IP due to a third party's bankruptcy. Makes no sense at all.
    - ndriscoll 3mo ago
      Wrong framing. "Intellectual property" has only been a concept for ~40 years. It's an invention inflicted upon us by our current elders. It can just as easily be done away with in favor of property ownership and consumer protection instead. e.g. I had old appliances that came with circuit diagrams. We could mandate by law that any device for sale must provide diagrams/schematics, BOM, and supplier contact information, any programmable device must provide source code and must not interfere with the owner loading their own code (basically GPL3 by law), etc. This all falls under the umbrella of strong right to repair/property rights, and in an AI world, it makes complete sense to do it. The cost of producing the "IP" will trend toward zero, so why would we protect it over the owner's rights? Likewise, with climate change and environmental destruction as the top issue in the world for our children, we should be mandating strong repairability criteria and strongly disincentivizing consumerism. For media/entertainment, even today, you can realize that our problem is already one of curation by considering what the world would be like with ~20 year copyright (or if you're just willing to pirate). 10s of millions of books, 10s of millions of songs, 10s of thousands of games. There's already more media than anyone could approach taking in. Even sticking to the best 0.1% (whatever that is) would fill a lifetime. There's simply no reason to continue this nonsense.
      - nradov 3mo ago
        Wrong framing. Copyrights and patents have been around for far longer than 40 years. Eliminating IP enforcement rights would destroy economic growth. The media and entertainment industry is relatively small and unimportant. If you occasionally lose access to some games / songs / movies it doesn't matter.
        ndriscoll 3mo ago

nradov 3mo ago

This is just straight up false. Apparently you don't understand bankruptcy law. Courts will prioritize the interests of creditors first. And the notion of a law requiring source code to be released in the public domain is so stupid. The source code is an asset which can potentially be sold to benefit creditors. And often the source code contains IP owned by third parties who wouldn't allow a release anyway.

ndriscoll 3mo ago
The law is what the people say it is. As the previous generation that created this system dies their successors can repeal eternal copyright laws and institute consumer protections again. e.g. we can demand source escrow to receive copyright (with a short grace period for current copyright holders to register/set up escrow), drastically shorten the period, demand copyrighted material continue to be made available or you lose your monopoly, etc. Or just abolish the whole system, which might completely lose its purpose if AI continues to improve. Actually companies might be doing this themselves on accident by using AI to generate assets, making them ineligible for copyright. All it takes is for young people to decide that they actually don't think they should have to pay a subscription to e.g. listen to music that came out when their dead great grandparents were kids or that they should have no rights to own anything ever. The same people whose student loans couldn't be discharged in bankruptcy could I'm sure consider the idea that companies' obligations to them can't be either.
- nradov 3mo ago
  Nah. There's not going to be a law which expropriates someone else's IP due to a third party's bankruptcy. Makes no sense at all.
  - ndriscoll 3mo ago
    Wrong framing. "Intellectual property" has only been a concept for ~40 years. It's an invention inflicted upon us by our current elders. It can just as easily be done away with in favor of property ownership and consumer protection instead. e.g. I had old appliances that came with circuit diagrams. We could mandate by law that any device for sale must provide diagrams/schematics, BOM, and supplier contact information, any programmable device must provide source code and must not interfere with the owner loading their own code (basically GPL3 by law), etc. This all falls under the umbrella of strong right to repair/property rights, and in an AI world, it makes complete sense to do it. The cost of producing the "IP" will trend toward zero, so why would we protect it over the owner's rights? Likewise, with climate change and environmental destruction as the top issue in the world for our children, we should be mandating strong repairability criteria and strongly disincentivizing consumerism. For media/entertainment, even today, you can realize that our problem is already one of curation by considering what the world would be like with ~20 year copyright (or if you're just willing to pirate). 10s of millions of books, 10s of millions of songs, 10s of thousands of games. There's already more media than anyone could approach taking in. Even sticking to the best 0.1% (whatever that is) would fill a lifetime. There's simply no reason to continue this nonsense.
    - nradov 3mo ago
      Wrong framing. Copyrights and patents have been around for far longer than 40 years. Eliminating IP enforcement rights would destroy economic growth. The media and entertainment industry is relatively small and unimportant. If you occasionally lose access to some games / songs / movies it doesn't matter.
      - ndriscoll 3mo ago