3 ms·

a system that makes absolutely no sense for data. no sense. none. Do not try to shoehorn a model where it doesn't fit, and for data: It doesn't fit. A differ

a system that makes absolutely no sense for data. no sense. none. Do not try to shoehorn a model where it doesn't fit, and for data: It doesn't fit. A different standard has to be adopted, and piracy is merely a symptom of that.

eropple 13y ago
Whether it makes "no sense" to you is, to be honest, pretty much irrelevant. It is a societal construct and you are a member of society and you take the "bad" (it's not, but, whatever) with the good. Copyright exists because we, as a society, want it to. We want people to make things for us to consume and so we enact laws to make it so they can do so and still eat. Don't like it? Feel free to try to change the law. But that's hard, and hard things aren't fun, so let's just go pirate Game of Thrones, yeah?
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  nope. Restructuring society happens when enough of it rejects the way things are currently ordered. I don't want to live with the way things are, and neither should you. Copyright exists because a majority of society currently thinks its the best way to produce, and that very well may be in the real world of limited supplies. In a world where the only value is novelty, copyright makes no sense. Once something is created, it's value drops because it's supply is infinite. Currently society thinks the way around that is to artificially restrict supply. I hope one day we will realize that were trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I would LOVE to pay for game of thrones... to be produced. Buying a copy of game of thrones is not worth its value, it has no value. It is in infinite supply. It is like air. This is why we donate to blogs, subscribe to series, and fund kickstarters. Because that is the economy of the web. The true economy.
- jholman 13y ago
  I was with you a few comments back, and I think I agree with your overall direction, but in nitpick land, I think the details of your argument have gone off the rails a little, here. I think it's not clear that "society" "wants" copyright to exist. Society, or at least the collection of individuals composing society, is pretty clearly conflicted on the subject. People want to retain creative control over their own work, to a degree that is clearly insane and impossible. And simultaneously people (some of the same people!) want to be allowed to do whatever they feel like with the works of others, to a degree that is... dubious. The sum of these positions is not clear. And in any case, the legal status quo does not derive from any such sum. It derives largely from Disney's lobbying, as you acknowledged. And in fact, what society does about statuses quo is not "take the bad with the good", and "try to change the law". Historically, that's not how the law gets updated. I'm not personally drawing an equivalence between copyvio and e.g. slavery or e.g. marijuana policy or e.g. religious intolerance... but hopefully those examples will demonstrate that in most cases the law follows popular sentiment and disobedience, not leads.

eropple 13y ago

Whether it makes "no sense" to you is, to be honest, pretty much irrelevant. It is a societal construct and you are a member of society and you take the "bad" (it's not, but, whatever) with the good. Copyright exists because we, as a society, want it to. We want people to make things for us to consume and so we enact laws to make it so they can do so and still eat. Don't like it? Feel free to try to change the law. But that's hard, and hard things aren't fun, so let's just go pirate Game of Thrones, yeah?

GhotiFish 13y ago
nope. Restructuring society happens when enough of it rejects the way things are currently ordered. I don't want to live with the way things are, and neither should you. Copyright exists because a majority of society currently thinks its the best way to produce, and that very well may be in the real world of limited supplies. In a world where the only value is novelty, copyright makes no sense. Once something is created, it's value drops because it's supply is infinite. Currently society thinks the way around that is to artificially restrict supply. I hope one day we will realize that were trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. I would LOVE to pay for game of thrones... to be produced. Buying a copy of game of thrones is not worth its value, it has no value. It is in infinite supply. It is like air. This is why we donate to blogs, subscribe to series, and fund kickstarters. Because that is the economy of the web. The true economy.
jholman 13y ago
I was with you a few comments back, and I think I agree with your overall direction, but in nitpick land, I think the details of your argument have gone off the rails a little, here. I think it's not clear that "society" "wants" copyright to exist. Society, or at least the collection of individuals composing society, is pretty clearly conflicted on the subject. People want to retain creative control over their own work, to a degree that is clearly insane and impossible. And simultaneously people (some of the same people!) want to be allowed to do whatever they feel like with the works of others, to a degree that is... dubious. The sum of these positions is not clear. And in any case, the legal status quo does not derive from any such sum. It derives largely from Disney's lobbying, as you acknowledged. And in fact, what society does about statuses quo is not "take the bad with the good", and "try to change the law". Historically, that's not how the law gets updated. I'm not personally drawing an equivalence between copyvio and e.g. slavery or e.g. marijuana policy or e.g. religious intolerance... but hopefully those examples will demonstrate that in most cases the law follows popular sentiment and disobedience, not leads.