Activity feed

  Amaro Koberle addressed criticism #1339.

‘To stop someone from murdering you you have to infringe on his private property by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned gun to shoot you’ How is that different?

#1339·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

Murdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body  in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1337.

Copyright is routinely violated without consequences anyway.

#1337·Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago

‘Lawbreakers get away with it all the time so it’s fine.’ How is that an argument?

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1336.

To keep someone from copying your work you have to infringe on the private property of that person by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned copying medium to instantiate a certain pattern.

#1336·Amaro Koberle, 6 months ago

‘To stop someone from murdering you you have to infringe on his private property by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned gun to shoot you’ How is that different?

  Amaro Koberle submitted criticism #1338.

All that being said, I think crediting people for inspiration is good form and should be part of common polite behavior.

  Amaro Koberle submitted criticism #1337.

Copyright is routinely violated without consequences anyway.

  Amaro Koberle submitted criticism #1336.

To keep someone from copying your work you have to infringe on the private property of that person by claiming an exclusive right on prohibiting his use of his privately owned copying medium to instantiate a certain pattern.

  Amaro Koberle submitted criticism #1335.

Intellectual property is a contradiction in terms because information isn't scarce the same way that private property necessarily must be.

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1331.
Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation. Without that incentive, many original creators wouldn’t publish their creations in the first place.
  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1329.

Copyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.

#1329·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

Another way copyright promotes creativity is that it doesn’t allow creations that aren’t sufficiently creative.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1329.

Copyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.

#1329·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation.

  Dennis Hackethal addressed criticism #1329.

Copyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.

#1329·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

People can still publish fan fiction as long as they get the copyright holder’s permission.

  Dennis Hackethal revised idea #1326 and marked it as a criticism. The revision addresses ideas #1324, #1325, #1327.

Mark as criticism and remove inapplicable children

  Dennis Hackethal revised criticism #1325.

Improve wording

This idea isn’t marked as a criticism but presumably should be. (Though it need not be marked as a criticism anymore if it’s going to be followedsplit up byinto multiple separate submissions as per #1324.)
  Dirk Meulenbelt revised idea #1323.
ThisCopyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions as much as without copyright. ↵
↵
I fail to see how fan fiction is at all damaging to an original creator.↵
↵
We have found an example where copyright is bad.↵
↵
Where is copyright good?fan-fictions.
  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1323.

This is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions as much as without copyright.

I fail to see how fan fiction is at all damaging to an original creator.

We have found an example where copyright is bad.

Where is copyright good?

#1323·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 6 months ago

This isn’t marked as a criticism but presumably should be. (Though it need not be marked as a criticism anymore if it’s going to be followed up by multiple separate submissions as per #1324.)

  Dennis Hackethal criticized idea #1323.

This is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions as much as without copyright.

I fail to see how fan fiction is at all damaging to an original creator.

We have found an example where copyright is bad.

Where is copyright good?

#1323·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 6 months ago

This idea contains at least two claims and one question:

  1. Copyright stifles creativity.
  2. Fan fiction does not damage creators.
  3. “Where is copyright good?”

It’s unwise to submit multiple ideas at once as they each become susceptible to ‘bulk criticism’. That can unduly weaken your own position.

Try submitting the ideas again, separately.

  Dirk Meulenbelt commented on idea #1322.

Not a lawyer but I believe such fan fiction would be considered a derivative work.

Copyright protects original creators’ exclusive right to create derivative works. So, selling your Star Wars fan fiction without permission from the copyright holders would be copyright infringement.

See this article.

#1322·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months ago

This is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions as much as without copyright.

I fail to see how fan fiction is at all damaging to an original creator.

We have found an example where copyright is bad.

Where is copyright good?

  Dennis Hackethal commented on idea #1321.

I am not allowed to sell my Star Wars fan-fiction. Why not?

#1321·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 6 months ago

Not a lawyer but I believe such fan fiction would be considered a derivative work.

Copyright protects original creators’ exclusive right to create derivative works. So, selling your Star Wars fan fiction without permission from the copyright holders would be copyright infringement.

See this article.

  Dirk Meulenbelt started a discussion titled Copyright.

We discuss whether it would be moral to abolish copyright

The discussion starts with idea #1321.

I am not allowed to sell my Star Wars fan-fiction. Why not?

  Knut Sondre Sæbø criticized idea #215.

Anything that processes information is a computer.

The brain processes information.

Therefore, the brain is a computer.

#215·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year ago

I think you run into circular dependence if you exhaustively try to account for brain function by information processing. Even Claud Shannon’s definition of information is dependent upon a «mind/perspective» defining a range of possible states. The world devoid of any perspective would have infinite states and systems depending on how you «view the world». An example I have previously given is the flickering flags computation in the tv show (books) Three body problem. This computation is dependent on a mind defining states and logical relations.

  Knut Sondre Sæbø revised criticism #1288 and unmarked it as a criticism.

Will move this criticism as a criticism of the main idea, since it is a criticism of the first premise.

  Knut Sondre Sæbø addressed criticism #513.

Yes re OR gate.

Re light switches: as I understand it, they either inhibit or permit the flow of electricity. But there’s no information there, let alone processing of information. So the example is flawed, I think.

#513·Dennis HackethalOP, about 1 year ago

If we use Claud Shannon’s framework of understanding information as reducing uncertainty, a light switch doesn’t contain information. But the problem with all kinds of information is that it is dependent on how you subjectively define states and uncertainty. Information is always relative to a certain «perspective».

  Knut Sondre Sæbø submitted idea #1261.

If we define a computer as anything that processes information, the brain is at least partly a computer, since it also processes information. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a brain is only a computer. Information processing can be done without subjective experience or qualia.

A brain's properties therefore transcend information processing. It is completely conceivable that you can construct a physical brain with identical information processing without accompanying experience (zoombie argument), unless you wan't to say that this instance of information process is dependent on also having the experience.