Amaro Koberle
Member since August 2024
Badges
Activity
Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarcethings.things.↵ ↵ Correction: In some sense copying information does impose a cost, but I think of that cost more akin to the cost imposed on an incumbent producer by his competing alternatives in a free market.↵ ↵ When I distribute Harry Potter for free, I am simply offering better terms for access to the information than JK Rowling, so in a free market I should be the one that ends up distributing because I solve the same problem at a lower price.
#1347 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoBut digital money isn’t physically scarce like someone’s body. Your argument rests on physical property being special in some way.
Do you agree that scarcity is at least a central consideration in determining whether copying information in disregard of consent should be considered a crime or not?
#1371 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
Just intuitively, I feel like there's a difference between forcing others not to force you, and forcing others not to copy you. I feel like defending against others using your scarce means towards their ends is just, while defending against others using non-scarce means towards their end is wicked. Since I impose no opportunity cost on someone by copying information, they have no claim on my scarce means as recompense. The copy-ability of information gives us this nice non-zero-sum situation where we can have our cake and eat it too because we don't have to economize on non-scarce things.
#1442 · Amaro Koberle, 24 days agoI have received a pattern of information. Information cannot be owned as it is non-scarce. JK Rowling is asking me to give her money for something that was never hers to begin with.
Going in circles now.
#1441 · Dennis Hackethal, 24 days agoYou didn’t trade value for value. You traded nothing at all and only received. A free market and justice depend on people interacting as traders, not as leeches (objectivism).
I have received a pattern of information. Information cannot be owned as it is non-scarce. JK Rowling is asking me to give her money for something that was never hers to begin with.
#1437 · Dennis Hackethal, 24 days agoMaybe you could simply pay her the price of the book plus interest plus a fee for the inconvenience. Plus some ‘deterrence fee’ so that most people don’t even think of doing it to begin with.
But I didn't agree to buy the book. I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't found it on pirate bay, let's say.
#1392 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoIf someone steals a bike and then gifts it to you that doesn’t mean the owner can’t have it back just because you didn’t steal it. Same for copyright.
There, the owner is short of a bike. Returning it to him will make him whole. The situation looks quite different in the case of information, at least in my eyes. What exactly is to be returned?
#1428 · Dennis Hackethal, 24 days agoNot sure that’s extortion but yes, generally speaking, people have the right to use force to prevent and address the arbitrary in social life (#1345).
But I was never party to that contract! I never agreed not to distribute it, and I also didn't actually distribute it. I just downloaded it from Pirate bay.
#1392 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoIf someone steals a bike and then gifts it to you that doesn’t mean the owner can’t have it back just because you didn’t steal it. Same for copyright.
So then JK Rowling can use violence against me to extort the value that I have supposedly stolen by downloading a book that was uploaded in violation of a contract by a third person?
#1421 · Amaro Koberle, 24 days agoIt's a good point, but I don't think those two compare. Again, bicycles are scarce. My use prevents your use.
There's this nice bit in Man, Economy & State where Rothbard explains that durable goods can be broken down into their unit services (not sure that's the term) and that all durable goods get used up as they provide service.
So I guess someone would reduce the serviceable lifespan of the bike by using it during the times that you aren't using it.
It's a good point, but I don't think those two compare. Again, bicycles are scarce. My use prevents your use.#1419 · Dennis Hackethal, 24 days ago‘Couriers who jump start their careers by stealing bicycles wouldn’t exist.’
It's a good point, but I don't think those two compare. Again, bicycles are scarce.
Midjourney wouldn't exist... Our cool pics of Mujahideen eating Bacon wouldn't exist.
#1412 · Dennis Hackethal, 24 days agoThey are creating some but also stealing lots. You could steal a bicycle to become a courier and create value as a courier, but you still shouldn’t steal the bicycle in the first place. And if the thief complained about not being able to create value because it’s illegal to steal bicycles, everyone would rightly laugh at him. It’s his responsibility to find win/win solutions with people, not leech off others in the name of ‘creating value’.
I doubt it. I hope they keep doing it. I hope to live in a world where copyright isn't enforced. I expect to see more creation and novelty.
#1410 · Dennis Hackethal, 24 days agoLLM coders should come up with something else that doesn’t steal value.
Maybe LLM coders aren't stealing value but instead creating it?
Copyright just seems so arbitrary to me. The whole edifice of law around it. Why 70 years after the author's death? What's "original"? When is it "my own words?"
#1385 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoOk let’s rewind the clock and say JK Rowling has finished writing Harry Potter but she hasn’t published it yet.
And she says: I’m going to publish and sell this book on condition that anyone who buys it not distribute it further. They can read it but they can’t redistribute it without my permission.
Those are the terms of publication. It’s a contract. And anyone who buys the book is then bound by the contract.
She would not publish the book otherwise.
She created a value and she wants to trade that value for something specific (money in exchange for reading, not redistributing).
Others are free to take her up on the offer or ignore her.
I wasn't aware that I signed such a contract when buying a book. I think for the contract to be valid I have to be aware of the conditions, no?
#1391 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoNot like signing NDA since you are free to talk about the ideas in the book in your own words, but kinda like breach of contract yeah.
Okay well I have never thought of it in those terms. I definitely think NDAs should be enforceable.
Lol no, I'm trying to understand your point. You're saying that buying a book is a bit like signing an NDA, where I can be held liable for breach of contract if I disclose information. Did I get that right?#1387 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoIf you’re looking for someone to assuage your guilt over having pirated copyrighted content in the past, you won’t get that from me.
Lol no, I'm trying to understand your point.
#1385 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoOk let’s rewind the clock and say JK Rowling has finished writing Harry Potter but she hasn’t published it yet.
And she says: I’m going to publish and sell this book on condition that anyone who buys it not distribute it further. They can read it but they can’t redistribute it without my permission.
Those are the terms of publication. It’s a contract. And anyone who buys the book is then bound by the contract.
She would not publish the book otherwise.
She created a value and she wants to trade that value for something specific (money in exchange for reading, not redistributing).
Others are free to take her up on the offer or ignore her.
So it's not me who's pirating the book that is violating her right. It's whoever uploaded it for me to download it, right?
Okay so without referring to current legislation. I understand that it is currently illegal, just like tax evasion, but that won't go far in persuading me that it isn't right.
#1379 · Dennis Hackethal, 26 days agoYou’re violating her rights: specifically, her copyright. That’s an aggression.
Why am I violating her rights?