Activity feed

‘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?

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

Copyright is routinely violated without consequences anyway.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.)

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.

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?

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.

We discuss whether it would be moral to abolish copyright

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

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.

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».

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.

I disagree that the universe would remain an object if we remove all objects, because an object must have properties. If we define “the universe” as the totality of all objects, then removing them leaves only a word with no metaphysical referent, and therefore can’t be thought of as “existing”. So I agree that it doesn’t work when applied to “all of existence”. This is why I think your point about the excluded middle makes nothingness impossible. But generally speaking, “nothingness” as a quantifier typically involves no logical contradictions.