4 ms·

Or, we just need to get this over with and declare any digital data findable via the internet to just be public property of everyone. Everything becomes public,

Or, we just need to get this over with and declare any digital data findable via the internet to just be public property of everyone. Everything becomes public, besides stuff you keep locally, and there is no difference anymore, it's all just data anyone can use for whatever. A 1 year grace period for everyone to pull stuff off they don't want to be a part of this bright new open era, then we just scrap everything related to intellectual property, copyright and similar stupid stuff, and slap UBI on top of all of it for good measure.

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
chme 1mo ago
I'd prefer to stay within the [hacker ethics](https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics), and protect private data. For non-private/personal data, sure. But individual people need their privacy protected.
- embedding-shape 1mo ago
  Me too, I'm hacker ethics all the way, which is why I'm saying anything network connected should really realize the "All information should be free." dream, and then private data should be far away from the internet, on computers/drives not even connected to the internet. The whole E2E encryption is a ticking time bomb people rely to keep their data safe from others, but nothing that you don't physically have close to you can be truly secret forever, and even then it'll be hard.
  - Caracas288 1mo ago
    Exactly, and right now we have the worst of both worlds with companies blatantly ignoring copyright, but individuals prosecuted for violating it.
  - chme 1mo ago
    Well... If someone leaks private data on individuals online, those should be deleted.
    - embedding-shape 1mo ago
      > If someone leaks private data on individuals online That won't be possible anymore, anything on the internet would be considered public, it's no longer considered private if you didn't keep it private.
      - chme 1mo ago
        That sounds dystopian to me and is against the hacker ethics.
        embedding-shape 1mo ago
        Letting information that want to be free, be free, sounds exactly like the hacker ethics to myself, and the link you shared earlier would agree.
        chme 1mo ago
        The last point is pretty clear, and the text below clarifies it: > To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added. The privacy of individuals is important, regardless where they store their private data. Their account information -- what they buy, their medical information and so on is stored on servers and could be hacked.
        embedding-shape 1mo ago
        > The last point is pretty clear I think the second point is equally clear, and further up on the list. I agree that what people buy, their medical information and so on should be private, hence it should only be offline and not stored/handled on computers connected to the internet at all, the internet should be for public data exclusively, is my argument in the initial comment. Medical information would be only on effectively airgapped computers, as that data should be private, as you say.
dotancohen 1mo ago
I respectful disagree. I enjoy reading e.g. Asimov and well-executed journalism. And I completely respect the IP of those people who create these works.
- idiotsecant 1mo ago
  I'm what way does it make sense to respect the intellectual property rights of a dead man?
  - dotancohen 1mo ago
    That dead man took the risk of not earning much in his lifetime, to continue feeding his family even after his passing. You might as well ask why does someone acquire life insurance.
  - ceejayoz 1mo ago
    If IP rights end at death, there are some significant perverse incentives for offing big-name artists and authors and whatnot.
    - rmunn 1mo ago
      The current "lifetime of the author + X years" rules in effect in the United States still carry the same perverse incentive, though the incentive diminishes rapidly as X gets larger; with the very large value of X in effect today the perverse incentive is so small as to be effectively non-existent, but it's still there in theory. Personally, I'd prefer a fixed term. I know enough independent authors making a living from selling their books that I'm willing to allow the fixed term to be large, like 50 years from date of completion of the work. (With a good definition of "completion" so someone can't cheat by editing a couple lines per year to keep something copyrighted indefinitely). The simpler the rule is, the easier it is to understand, and the harder it is to cheat it. The more complicated you make a rule, the more loopholes get found.
    - idiotsecant 1mo ago
      There are significant perverse incentives for me shooting you with a gun and taking your money and running away too. It mostly doesn't happen.
jrm4 1mo ago
What you're slightly more realistically looking for here is for publicly available data to have a Fair Use exemption for certain uses, which is certainly something worth discussing.
tshaddox 1mo ago
I don't really get what you're suggesting. You give a 1 year grace period for Metallica to pull all its music off the Internet, but then as soon as I host some of their MP3s on my Wordpress blog it's "public property of everyone" from that point forward?
jchw 1mo ago
I hate to invoke Poe's law but, I've now flip-flopped like six times over whether this could be serious. I think it is serious. In which case, I gotta say, it really seems like you didn't spend much time thinking about this. "A 1 year grave period for everyone to pull stuff off they don't want to be a part of" - How does that work when the Internet is already full of unauthorized reproductions, most of which people aren't even aware of? Even ignoring practical considerations, when literally everyone is basically stuck using the Internet for everything, this seems a bit unfair to anyone who isn't onboard, akin to The Onion's Google Opt-out Village. But there are so many practical issues with this, it would be easier to list the number of problems this doesn't have. You accidentally leak something to the Internet and it becomes commons? What happens when other people leak things to the Internet? How about revenge porn? Not minor stuff that can easily be papered over, this literally reintroduces the problem of needing to care about the provenance of data again, in a way that can't be automated, which makes the whole thing entirely moot. All just to make training data for AI models easier to distribute? I'm all for intellectual property reform, maybe even fairly radical. But this just seems like it wasn't thought out. If this was satire, well, I took the bait. Oddly convincing despite being hard to believe.
- embedding-shape 1mo ago
  > If this was satire, well, I took the bait. Oddly convincing despite being hard to believe. It wasn't entirely serious, but also not entirely un-serious. But yes, I spent maybe 20-30 seconds thinking about then barfed up the text that makes the comment, so yes, obviously many issues and not really workable in practice. I'm glad it made you seriously think about it and also flip-flopp back and forth about it, made it worth posting the comment so happy to hear :)
yencabulator 1mo ago
There is an image of Mickey Mouse findable via the internet -> you're going against a very well funded lobby.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

chme 1mo ago

I'd prefer to stay within the [hacker ethics](https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics), and protect private data. For non-private/personal data, sure. But individual people need their privacy protected.

embedding-shape 1mo ago
Me too, I'm hacker ethics all the way, which is why I'm saying anything network connected should really realize the "All information should be free." dream, and then private data should be far away from the internet, on computers/drives not even connected to the internet. The whole E2E encryption is a ticking time bomb people rely to keep their data safe from others, but nothing that you don't physically have close to you can be truly secret forever, and even then it'll be hard.
- Caracas288 1mo ago
  Exactly, and right now we have the worst of both worlds with companies blatantly ignoring copyright, but individuals prosecuted for violating it.
- chme 1mo ago
  Well... If someone leaks private data on individuals online, those should be deleted.
  - embedding-shape 1mo ago
    > If someone leaks private data on individuals online That won't be possible anymore, anything on the internet would be considered public, it's no longer considered private if you didn't keep it private.
    - chme 1mo ago
      That sounds dystopian to me and is against the hacker ethics.
      - embedding-shape 1mo ago
        Letting information that want to be free, be free, sounds exactly like the hacker ethics to myself, and the link you shared earlier would agree.
        chme 1mo ago
        The last point is pretty clear, and the text below clarifies it: > To protect the privacy of the individual and to strengthen the freedom of the information which concern the public the yet last point was added. The privacy of individuals is important, regardless where they store their private data. Their account information -- what they buy, their medical information and so on is stored on servers and could be hacked.
        embedding-shape 1mo ago
        > The last point is pretty clear I think the second point is equally clear, and further up on the list. I agree that what people buy, their medical information and so on should be private, hence it should only be offline and not stored/handled on computers connected to the internet at all, the internet should be for public data exclusively, is my argument in the initial comment. Medical information would be only on effectively airgapped computers, as that data should be private, as you say.

dotancohen 1mo ago

I respectful disagree. I enjoy reading e.g. Asimov and well-executed journalism. And I completely respect the IP of those people who create these works.

idiotsecant 1mo ago
I'm what way does it make sense to respect the intellectual property rights of a dead man?
- dotancohen 1mo ago
  That dead man took the risk of not earning much in his lifetime, to continue feeding his family even after his passing. You might as well ask why does someone acquire life insurance.
- ceejayoz 1mo ago
  If IP rights end at death, there are some significant perverse incentives for offing big-name artists and authors and whatnot.
  - rmunn 1mo ago
    The current "lifetime of the author + X years" rules in effect in the United States still carry the same perverse incentive, though the incentive diminishes rapidly as X gets larger; with the very large value of X in effect today the perverse incentive is so small as to be effectively non-existent, but it's still there in theory. Personally, I'd prefer a fixed term. I know enough independent authors making a living from selling their books that I'm willing to allow the fixed term to be large, like 50 years from date of completion of the work. (With a good definition of "completion" so someone can't cheat by editing a couple lines per year to keep something copyrighted indefinitely). The simpler the rule is, the easier it is to understand, and the harder it is to cheat it. The more complicated you make a rule, the more loopholes get found.
  - idiotsecant 1mo ago
    There are significant perverse incentives for me shooting you with a gun and taking your money and running away too. It mostly doesn't happen.

jrm4 1mo ago

What you're slightly more realistically looking for here is for publicly available data to have a Fair Use exemption for certain uses, which is certainly something worth discussing.

tshaddox 1mo ago

I don't really get what you're suggesting. You give a 1 year grace period for Metallica to pull all its music off the Internet, but then as soon as I host some of their MP3s on my Wordpress blog it's "public property of everyone" from that point forward?

jchw 1mo ago

I hate to invoke Poe's law but, I've now flip-flopped like six times over whether this could be serious. I think it is serious. In which case, I gotta say, it really seems like you didn't spend much time thinking about this. "A 1 year grave period for everyone to pull stuff off they don't want to be a part of" - How does that work when the Internet is already full of unauthorized reproductions, most of which people aren't even aware of? Even ignoring practical considerations, when literally everyone is basically stuck using the Internet for everything, this seems a bit unfair to anyone who isn't onboard, akin to The Onion's Google Opt-out Village. But there are so many practical issues with this, it would be easier to list the number of problems this doesn't have. You accidentally leak something to the Internet and it becomes commons? What happens when other people leak things to the Internet? How about revenge porn? Not minor stuff that can easily be papered over, this literally reintroduces the problem of needing to care about the provenance of data again, in a way that can't be automated, which makes the whole thing entirely moot. All just to make training data for AI models easier to distribute? I'm all for intellectual property reform, maybe even fairly radical. But this just seems like it wasn't thought out. If this was satire, well, I took the bait. Oddly convincing despite being hard to believe.

embedding-shape 1mo ago
> If this was satire, well, I took the bait. Oddly convincing despite being hard to believe. It wasn't entirely serious, but also not entirely un-serious. But yes, I spent maybe 20-30 seconds thinking about then barfed up the text that makes the comment, so yes, obviously many issues and not really workable in practice. I'm glad it made you seriously think about it and also flip-flopp back and forth about it, made it worth posting the comment so happy to hear :)

yencabulator 1mo ago

There is an image of Mickey Mouse findable via the internet -> you're going against a very well funded lobby.