🇳🇱
@freemo @null0x0 iTunes has been selling DRM-free music for over half a decade now.
At any rate, nobody is entitled to a song just because it exists. If someone can't afford a song (or can't consent to its licensing terms), they should find a more agreeable alternative rather than taking it on their own terms. They are (hopefully) already doing this with physical goods such as food, clothing, and vehicles, so it shouldn't be too hard to adjust.
There is no consistent theory of law or property by which a particular arrangement of 1s and 0s on my hard drive is perfect fine, but somehow is ‘theft’ if I flip 1 bit out of hundreds of thousands.
Actually IP law doesnt work like that.. if a particular arrangement of 1’s and 0’s is illegal, then flipping just one of those is also illegal. The two are significantly similar to be considered derivative work.
Basically if the combinations and 1’s and 0’s you have can not be reasonably expected to be derived from a copyrighted material, and therefore you came up with it on your own independently (or from free/open sources) then it is legal… simple as that.
We can prove this by simply looking at the economic goods matrix. Thoughts (or specifics orderings of 1s and 0s) are neither excludable nor rivalrous. Therefore as a class they cannot exist as private property.
Since your axiom above is wrong this and the rest of your statement is by extension wrong as it builds the argument upon your axiom.
No, that's not actually how IP or computers work. The "work" that is copyrighted is not 1s and 0s. I couldn't transcode an audio file into a different format, resulting in a completely different arrangement of 1s and 0s and therby successfully avoid the copyright. Both file formats fall under the copyrighted work, yet changing 1 bit in either which renders the file inaudible, would be perfectly acceptable under IP.
And anyway, "derivative work" only exists as a legal concept that is a subset of IP law. Therefore the argument is begging the question as it depends on IP being true for 'derivative works' to be cogent.
And no, my arguments aren't nested, the first is an appeal to common sense, the second is the rigorous proof. I would accept a refutation of the rigorous proof as sufficient to dismiss the common sense appeal, but not the other way around.
No, that’s not actually how IP or computers work. The “work” that is copyrighted is not 1s and 0s. I couldn’t transcode an audio file into a different format, resulting in a completely different arrangement of 1s and 0s and therby successfully avoid the copyright. Both file formats fall under the copyrighted work, yet changing 1 bit in either which renders the file inaudible, would be perfectly acceptable under IP.
Wrong. The work copyrighted absolutely can be 1’s and 0’s though usually it is not, and instead copyrighted as text, or an image more abstractly.. however any set of 1’s and 0’s that represent the copyrighted work is therefore derived from it, and copyrighted as well (and thus yes, the 1’s and 0’s are copyrighted by extension). Moreover any derivatives such as modifying a single 1 or 0 would be likewise copyrighted.
And anyway, “derivative work” only exists as a legal concept that is a subset of IP law. Therefore the argument is begging the question as it depends on IP being true for ‘derivative works’ to be cogent.
IP is “true” its the law. So derivative work as a concept of IP is also “true”
And no, my arguments aren’t nested, the first is an appeal to common sense, the second is the rigorous proof. I would accept a refutation of the rigorous proof as sufficient to dismiss the common sense appeal, but not the other way around.
Sure I can do that.
We can prove this by simply looking at the economic goods matrix. Thoughts (or specifics orderings of 1s and 0s) are neither excludable nor rivalrous. Therefore as a class they cannot exist as private property.
In your “proof” even your leadin here fails… For starts “thoughts” arent copyrighted. If you happen to somehow know something i am thinking and go implement it you would not be violating any copyright as I can not copyright a thought in my head. I can copyright expressions, which may be some image or text that i derive from a thought. But the underlying thought, even then, is not necessarily copyrighted.
Software, for example, can do the same thing as some copyrighted piece of software. so long as it was designed from scratch and not derived directly from the other software its legal, even though it represents the same idea.
This isn’t some esoteric point of anarco-capitalists philosophy; it is literally econ 101 level analysis.
No it isnt, as we just covered your statement isnt just not part of econ 101, but it is fundamentally incorrect.
Ergo, now that we are into your “proof” it too fails on its axiom statement.
1. I don't actually think an arbitrary string of 1s and 0s can be copyrighted. Any combination would constitute a natural number, and therefor fall under facts and scientific discoveries exceptions to copyright.
2. No, laws are not "true". A US state once passed a bill specifying an incorrect value of Pi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
Wagon wheels throughout the land did not magically change shape. The "law" is nothing but words on paper, it can't make the possibility of owning ideas any more "true" in real life than it can change the shape of circles. Believing otherwise is to believe in literal magic spells.
3. Nothing you said shows that ideas are rivalrous or excludable (and to be a private good, they must be both). Changing the argument from ideas to "expression of ideas" is a trivial deflection: 1s and 0s are an "expression of ideas", yet you think they are private goods, please show how an arrangement of 1s and 0s on my hard drive is both rivalrous and excludable. All other forms of expression fall under the same logic. I can write down a novel word for word with a pen a paper in my bedroom.
4. IDK where you took economics, but yes absolutely at my college the rivalrous/excludable goods matrix was pretty early, like week one or two of my micro 101 class. Unfortunately I was not able to find my old textbooks. It looks like my wife sent them to good will, but I assure you I am not lying about it being 101 level stuff.
- I don’t actually think an arbitrary string of 1s and 0s can be copyrighted. Any combination would constitute a natural number, and therefor fall under facts and scientific discoveries exceptions to copyright.
Natural numbers both can and have been copyrighted. Though not every number can be copyrighted since small or simple numbers woulc clearly be seen as derivatives of numbers already int he public domain. See reference below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
- No, laws are not “true”. A US state once passed a bill specifying an incorrect value of Pi:
Not relevant, we are talking about true by definition, where the government literally has the authority to make such definitions. So they are always “true” in the sense that they defined the law and how to interpret it.
Nothing you said shows that ideas are rivalrous or excludable (and to be a private good, they must be both).
I am not the one making the argument based on the goods matrix in the first place. You were. Your argument started on an axiom which was trivially incorrect, ergo your argument fails. I do not need to go behond that, its your argument not mine, the onus is on you to correct your error.
IDK where you took economics, but yes absolutely at my college the rivalrous/excludable goods matrix was pretty early, like week one or two of my micro 101 class. Unfortunately I was not able to find my old textbooks. It looks like my wife sent them to good will, but I assure you I am not lying about it being 101 level stuff.
I wasnt saying that the goods matrix was not economics 101, I was pointing out your “proof” made statements about copyrights that were fundamentally false and in no way part of the teaching. Ergo your overall statement was not just not part of economics but erroneous. The fact that you referenced a valid part of economics (the matrix) despite being is moot.
"True by definition" is just a restatement of 'begging the question'. You assume the answer first, and then show that if it's already true then it's true. This is tautology, not argument.
You can pass a law that says I'm to be burned at the stake as a witch, but no matter how hard you burn me at the stake, nothing you can do will ever have made me a witch.
>A private good is defined in economics as "an item that yields positive benefits to people" that is excludable, i.e. its owners can exercise private property rights, preventing those who have not paid for it from using the good or consuming its benefits; and rivalrous, i.e. consumption by one necessarily prevents that of another.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_good
This is not a whack-a-doodle axiom I made up, this is the formal definition of what constitutes a private property right: excludability. If it's not excludable it cannot be private property.
You can pass a law saying burn me at the stake for downloading a song, but no matter how hard you burn me, you can't make downloading a song be a violation of anyone's property rights.
>...We are talking about true by definition, where the government literally has the authority to make such definitions. So they are always “true” in the sense that they defined the law and how to interpret it.
Wait, if you really believe this, it follows that you would believe slave ownership to be legitimate as long as it is codified in law?
If that's true, we may just be at the agree to disagree point.
Of course it is legitimate. Legitimate doesnt mean you approve of it or that it is right or even justified. If it is the law it is legitimate by definition, nothing else.
Slavery is bad, immoral, unwanted, unjustified, and should never be legal. But if it is legal then it is legitimate by definition
@freemo @anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright again, I believe they are using the more colloquially accepted form of this word that I pointed out before.
@herag
I think i missed that.
@anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright
@freemo @anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright I honestly didn't expect more than just myself to jump in to this conversation. Not surprisingly it has been very easy to miss things because so many responses probably hit your client. 😃
I am not sure if it's obvious, but colloquially Legitimate tends to mean something like, 'just, righteous, moral, and so on.' And most people will not use it to refer to anything specifically 'legal'. An important distinction.
That would be in line with the definition of the word, if we consider morality or rightousness a set of "rules" to live by. But generally the ruleset must be explicitly stated or inferred. Inference doesnt work well when your trying to argue logic though and probably would be best someone use the word "moral" rather than "legitimate" since we are arguing legality in the first place.
@freemo @anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright I don't disagree. Especially now that you made me realize what the root of that word is. I honestly never thought of it that way until you said something.
I find people rarely stop and think about the meaning of the words they use. They kind of just get a feel for the word and use it when it feels right... Thats fine for casual conversation but it really causes problem when we are trying to be precise and have a logical debate.
But im glad i could shed some light on that and show why its important to be mindful of our choice of words when we are trying to make a logical case. Precision is everything.
@freemo
In that case I guess my position is revised to 'Govt use of violent and aggressive force is objectively immoral regardless of the outcome of their policies and that includes the use of force for copyright laws.'
You are right. That transforms the conversation quite a bit.
P.S. I wish I had as many characters as you do to facilitate a more detailed conversation.
@anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright
I really hate the character limitation on other instances, I feel ya.
So as for your argument, obviously I disagree, but semantically we are on level playing field now at least.
@freemo
True true. We do. I am not entirely certain how to argue my point any differently. The way I see it, if you want an apple and you pluck one from a tree that is unkept by anyone else, that is fair. If your neighbor has an apple that you want and you hold a gun in the face demanding it, that is immoral. This is what the govt does on a large scale. Somehow they have decided that there is something called a (1/2)
@anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright
@freemo
a social contract. Which is sort of laughable in itself since a contract requires agreement by two or more parties. But this social contract is what seemingly holds the whole fabric of 'society' together, though I would argue otherwise. Perhaps I should in long form and you can critique it, perhaps? Just a thought.
Sorry for the delay. Work got super hectic.
@anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright
I have limited energy. I am happy to consider your points, but the energy i have for this thread is diminishing. Not sure id get through anything excessively long. But feel free to post it, others in the thread might respond, so might I.
So your position is that human beings do not have any innate rights?
Slaves do not have a right to self ownership or self determination that are stolen, abridged, or deprived during their enslavement; rather, as long as they are 'legally' enslaved, no human rights are violated in your view?
Of course there are natural/innate rights. But the word legitimate is about something validated by a law r set of rules. So you must specify the laws you are using to judge legitimacy, which i covered earlier. In the case of slavery we would say "slavery was legitimate in colonial america". Meanwhile if international law made it illegal one could say "slavery was illegitimate according to international law".
If you dont specify which set of rules something is legitimized under then you arent really saying anything useful
No worries, the semantic side isnt too important... the issue here is just that "legitimate" is a far more loaded term than just saying "moral".. moral is subjective, legitimate seems to mask that subjectivity to some degree.
I think we've reached agreement that the innate right to self-ownership cannot be created or erased by scribbling in a dusty book in Washington DC, yes?
How do you conceive of these innate rights' origin or basis?
My view is that innate self-ownership is derived from (perhaps not surprisingly) the goods matrix. Any time and energy I spend doing things you make me do is time and energy forever lost to me, and no one but me can ever inhabit my person, making me both excludable and rivalrous. Therefore I have exclusive and untransferable private property right to my own person.
innate/natural rights are those rights a person would have if no other humans existed... plop a human in the middle of a jungle and whatever they are are free to do there would consitute their natural rights.
So being free of slavery would be a natural right. Being allowed to steal other peoples ideas, not a natural right.
Yes you would, except since no humans existed you'd be unable to steal their ideas. Any ideas you come up with would therefore have to be done on your own, and from scratch (not a derived work).
You could never put the bits representing the mona lisa on your hard drive if you were the only human since you wouldnt have another human around to pain the mona lisa from which you could steal and create those bits.
Then to be more clear, natural rights are those rights you have when all other humans and society are taken out of the equation.
Also I'd love to know how you'd manage to digitize the mona lisa in the middle of the jungle, let alone make a laptop out of twigs :)
@freemo @Albright @null0x0 oh that is weird. IP is a fictitious construct of the elite classes. In fact, DRM is the less abusive form of IP. It does not hold a gun in your face. It's just stupid. Sort of ridiculous, but legitimate.
IP requires the illegitimate use of force to extract wealth for the benefit of someone who has no control over their creative work. IP also verifiably limits the production of creative derivatives to the detriment of all.
It is not a “fictious construct of the elite classes”… it is very much real, it just isnt physical… non-physical does not make a thing fictitious.
IP requires the illegitimate use of force to extract wealth for the benefit of someone who has no control over their creative work.
Also not true, not only is the use of force legitimate (as it has entered into law democratically) it also is not used over someone who “has no control over their creative work”… you have all the control over your creative work you want, as long as you arent stealing from others when you do it.
And yes it limits derivative works, as well it should. You are, however, welcome to design and build your idea from scratch. You arent limited in any meaningful way, you just can’t steal other peoples hard work to avoid doing your own hard work.
@freemo
So it is 'real' why? Because some rich guys set up a system that a minor majority supports? I assume this leads into the 'social contract' argument, but that is a construct too. Govt is a construct to support the rich. Democracy is a tool of the elites to instill submission in the people and to capitalize on the the weakness of the minority. IP, like govt, is only 'real' because a ruling class decides that it is real.
@Albright @null0x0
So it is ‘real’ why?
Because it exists and is utilized by society. I cant believe I need explain the meaning of “real”.
If i imagine a picture of a unicorn in my head then that thought is real, the unicorn is not, but i actually had the thought and therefore it is real.
I really shouldnt need to explain what the meaning of real is. No it has nothing to with who set up the system or how many people support it. So long as it exists, tangibly or not, then it is real, buy definition.
@freemo @Albright @null0x0 it exists in your mind. It is not legitimate. This concept of govt is, in fact, a fairy tale. I don't deny that there is a group of thugs who tell us that we owe them some homage. I believe they they have very large guns. I believe that they do enforce their rule for the benefit of some and the detriment of the majority. Law is a mythological tool to keep you submissive to the thugs that rule over you.
That is the whole of the matter
No it doesnt exist in my mind. It has been codified on paper, executed through actions.. etc.
As for it not being legitimate, you clearly dont know what the meaning of that word is. Legitimate is defined as "conforming to the law or rules"... It is quite literally legitimate by definition.
You cant in one breath say that they exist and are real, and then in the same breath try to claim they are a fiction... you are making not a lick of sense. What you probably mean is you dont agree with it, or that the ideas it espouses are human creations.. but none of that makes it a fantasy. Your throwing words around and using them in a way that is in no way related to what those words mean.
@freemo @Albright @null0x0 okay, we could argue semantics I guess. Legitimate does mean as you say it means. However colloquially it carries another meaning that I assumed was obvious.
Legitimate: just, righteous, moral, etc. It means that a group of thugs that call themselves govt/God/the priesthood/the saints shall not claim power through murder. They continue it and were founded upon it.
Farmers didn't like that God... I mean George Washington (1/2)
@freemo @Albright @null0x0 taxed them excessively, so they refused to pay. Washington dispatched his cronies and murdered them.
Someone decided that there should be Manifest Destiny, a truly spiritual claim, so they murdered Natives across the whole land.
You refuse the theft of your property and govt will come and take it by force and murder you if you resist.
@freemo @herag @Albright @null0x0 There is no consistent theory of law or property by which a particular arrangement of 1s and 0s on my hard drive is perfect fine, but somehow is ‘theft’ if I flip 1 bit out of hundreds of thousands.
We can prove this by simply looking at the economic goods matrix. Thoughts (or specifics orderings of 1s and 0s) are neither excludable nor rivalrous. Therefore as a class they cannot exist as private property.
This isn’t some esoteric point of anarco-capitalists philosophy; it is literally econ 101 level analysis.
Indeed, as “pure public goods”, governments should be subsidizing, rather than penalizing their distribution. In fact they do: every public library, NPR, PBS, and PRI are each an explicit admission from the government itself that freely spreading content is a social good, not ‘theft’. If you support IP, to be intellectually consistent you must also oppose broadcast radio and TV, and want to imprison every librarian in the nation.
If you both support IP laws and public libraries, you may have to ask yourself if you’re experiencing cognitive dissonance.