I would still download a car if I could. 🚗

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

213 comments

Unlike physical goods, information can flow and be copied freely at a fundamental physics level.
The electricity and silicon required to make this happen are not free, on a societal or physical level. There is a tangible cost to this transfer, even if you're ignoring the social construct of copyright.
I think this issue comes from a misunderstanding of "free", possibly conflating it for "trivially easy".
Rather than develop a system that rewards digital artists based on how much something is used for free
Feel free to come up with such a system. I think you'll find that a rather difficult task.
- The electricity and silicon required to make this happen are not free, on a societal or physical level. There is a tangible cost to this transfer, even if you're ignoring the social construct of copyright.
  Completely irrelevant.
  If I already have a computer and an internet connection then I've already paid the costs, prior to initiating that particular request.
  I think this issue comes from a misunderstanding of "free", possibly conflating it for "trivially easy".
  In the context of pricing resources, those are the same thing.
  Feel free to come up with such a system. I think you'll find that a rather difficult task.
  The model is the same one used by streaming services. It's one of reward and attribution rather artificial scarcity. Rather than having streaming and advertising middlemen you have a public system that lets everyone access what they want and rewards creators based on usages. Youtube without Google's exorbitant profits.
  Copyright has no basis in human culture or history. Our literal entire history is based on a tradition of free remixing and story telling, not copyright.
  
  Copyright has no basis in human culture or history.
  It's exited before any of us currently alive, so that's a pretty absurd notion. Unless human culture and history ended ~300 years ago?
  
  K, versus 2,750,000 years.
  Here's 300 letter g's:
  
  gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg gggggggggggggggggggg
  Here's 2.75 million letter h's
  
  Oh wait, I can't paste that many because at 40 chars per line, it would be 68,000 lines long, or 1000x the Android clipboard's char limit.
  You are literally describing a meaningless iota in the course of human history.
  
  I don't get your argument. So because it's "new" according to your grand cosmic scale, it doesn't exist at all?
  You can say "I think intellectual property is a dumb idea" and I'd love to hear your arguments for that, but to act like it isn't real just because we came up with the idea relatively recently, is just asinine.
  
  ,You can say "I think intellectual property is a dumb idea" and I'd love to hear your arguments for that,
  Read the above comments then.
  but to act like it isn't real just because we came up with the idea relatively recently, is just asinine.
  Again, read my comments. I didn't say it wasn't real, I said it has no basis in human culture or history.
  
  I said it has no basis in human culture or history.
  Not only is this incorrect, it would be meaningless even if it was accurate. What point are you even trying to make with this claim?
  
  It is 100% correct. There was no concept of owning a story or a song just because you told it first, throughout literally all of history until the copyright laws of the 20th century.
  And my point is that the literal entirety of human culture is based on a tradition of storytelling, something copyright expressly forbids.
  Copyright is not a system that aligns with our natural inclinations or the way we evolved. It's a crude, child like attempt to cram information into a capitalist mold that doesn't work.
  
  There was no concept of owning a story or a song just because you told it first, throughout literally all of history until the copyright laws of the 20th century.
  Brother, copyright has been around since at least the 1700s, you're literally just making things up right now. Read a book.
  
  Oh, wow. I'm so impressed.
  It's existed since the time of the transatlantic slave trade.
  Surely that makes it something human and good!
  Totally compares to the previous 2.75 Million years of story telling culture and tradition. Totally not just an exploitative artifact of the corporate age. /S
  And go ahead and cite your favourite book on copyright. Maybe I'll read it.
  
  Your argument so far has been "it's new (even though it's not) and I don't like it". If you wanna get extra pedantic, the idea of copyright has been floated since the 1500s, and the concept of owning art predates even that. It wasn't until the late 1700s that our current "modern" copyright system began taking form.
  Regardless, none of that changes the fact that it's still a real part of our lives now. We don't live 2.75 million years in the past, we live now. Presumably, you wipe after defecating, don't you? Didn't you know that toilet paper is a modern invention that we didn't have a million years ago and only went to market 3 years before slavery was abolished in the US? It's bad and we shouldn't use it, right???
  I still don't get what any of this has to do with anything we're talking about, though. I feel like maybe you've talked yourself into a corner by making up nonsense and then trying to defend it. This is dumb, just like every argument defending piracy; it uses sovereign citizen logic where you make up arbitrary rules and definitions that nobody else in society agrees with to justify bad behavior.
  If you wanna pirate stuff, then pirate it. But just own it; don't make up silly defenses for why it's okay, because they don't hold up under scrutiny.

213 comments