🇳🇱
@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.
@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.
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.
>...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.
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.
@freemo
Yeah, I'm definitely feeling that for sure. Totally understand that. I will see if I find time, if for nothing else to flesh out my own thoughts a little better.
@anonymoose @null0x0 @Albright
@freemo
I guess I sort of touched on this in one short essay that I wrote recently. I just read it again to be sure that I don't disagree with myself. Sometimes when I write I realize later that I worded something in a way that I will interpret it differently later on, but this is my most coherent compilation of my thoughts on govt power, which would apply to the concept of copyright I think.
@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.