6 ms·

Because in order to erect mechanisms for preventing the spread of information, we must be willing to destroy the value that the internet provides in the first p

Because in order to erect mechanisms for preventing the spread of information, we must be willing to destroy the value that the internet provides in the first place. Protecting money, even if only represented as information, does not require we lock down the internet. Anyways, perhaps you're inadvertently arguing in favor of a gold backed dollar?

leephillips 13y ago
"we must be willing to destroy the value that the internet provides in the first place." I don't see why that's necessarily so. "Protecting money, even if only represented as information, does not require we lock down the internet." I'm not sure I'm following you. Having rules and conventions about how information is treated on the internet doesn't mean that the internet is destroyed. We have rules of the road, but we still have roads. "perhaps you're inadvertently arguing in favor of a gold backed dollar?" How do you get here?
- marknutter 13y ago
  > I don't see why that's necessarily so. Then tell me how you stop piracy without reducing the openness of the internet.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Just because something can't be 100% prevented doesn't mean there should never be any efforts to stem it's activity.
  - leephillips 13y ago
    You're going from "destroy" to "reducing the openness"? I don't claim to have a solution that doesn't somehow "reduce the openness", or, in other words, apply some rules or mechanisms that are not in place now. I'm not interested in destroying or even significantly hampering the internet. But I also don't want the internet to destroy the ability of people to make a living from their creative work.
    - marknutter 13y ago
      Reducing the openness of the internet is synonymous with destroying it. To stop piracy altogether, I believe the value of the internet would need to be completely destroyed, yes. > I'm not interested in destroying or even significantly hampering the internet. But I also don't want the internet to destroy the ability of people to make a living from their creative work. You do realize that it has always been very difficult for artists to make a living off their work. So difficult, in fact, that the vast majority do their art in their spare time and work other jobs to stay afloat, and that has been the case long before piracy existed. I would argue that with the advent of the internet, and yes, file sharing (illegal or otherwise) has actually made it possible for more people to make a living off their art than could before these systems were in place. What you seem to be in favor of is protecting a very small number of people - namely signed, popular artists - while hurting the majority of other artists, people who share art, and the internet itself.

leephillips 13y ago

"we must be willing to destroy the value that the internet provides in the first place." I don't see why that's necessarily so. "Protecting money, even if only represented as information, does not require we lock down the internet." I'm not sure I'm following you. Having rules and conventions about how information is treated on the internet doesn't mean that the internet is destroyed. We have rules of the road, but we still have roads. "perhaps you're inadvertently arguing in favor of a gold backed dollar?" How do you get here?

marknutter 13y ago
> I don't see why that's necessarily so. Then tell me how you stop piracy without reducing the openness of the internet.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Just because something can't be 100% prevented doesn't mean there should never be any efforts to stem it's activity.
- leephillips 13y ago
  You're going from "destroy" to "reducing the openness"? I don't claim to have a solution that doesn't somehow "reduce the openness", or, in other words, apply some rules or mechanisms that are not in place now. I'm not interested in destroying or even significantly hampering the internet. But I also don't want the internet to destroy the ability of people to make a living from their creative work.
  - marknutter 13y ago
    Reducing the openness of the internet is synonymous with destroying it. To stop piracy altogether, I believe the value of the internet would need to be completely destroyed, yes. > I'm not interested in destroying or even significantly hampering the internet. But I also don't want the internet to destroy the ability of people to make a living from their creative work. You do realize that it has always been very difficult for artists to make a living off their work. So difficult, in fact, that the vast majority do their art in their spare time and work other jobs to stay afloat, and that has been the case long before piracy existed. I would argue that with the advent of the internet, and yes, file sharing (illegal or otherwise) has actually made it possible for more people to make a living off their art than could before these systems were in place. What you seem to be in favor of is protecting a very small number of people - namely signed, popular artists - while hurting the majority of other artists, people who share art, and the internet itself.