Dennis Hackethal
Member since June 2024
Activity
Ridiculous definition of murder. Classic libertarian thought bending over backwards to reduce everything to property rights. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.
#1343·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThat could be happening though, so agreed that it isn't a good argument.
I do expect innovation to suffer from current copyright infringement, yes. Just add up all the infringed copies being shared times the average price, that’s the damage being done and it discourages creators from creating more.
#1341·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoMurdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
Ridiculous definition of murder. Please cite a legal text where the definition of murder invokes scarce property.
#1346·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThe issue is scarcity. Digital money is also scarce since you cannot double spend it. If it wasn't scarce, it wouldn't be money and neither would it be private property.
But digital money isn’t physically scarce like someone’s body. Your argument rests on physical property being special in some way.
#1341·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoMurdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
Laws (against murder and other crimes) don’t reduce to physical property.
Libertarians often think that the purpose of the law is ONLY to define and enforce property rights. In reality, the purpose of the law is to prevent and address the arbitrary in social life.
It’s true that it would be arbitrary if anyone could just take your property against your will, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only kind of arbitrariness the law should prevent/address.
#1341·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoMurdering someone destroys their scarce property (their body in this case). Copying something using your own property leaves the original totally untouched.
One can steal value without stealing physical property (as happens when you transfer someone’s digital money without their consent).
‘Lawbreakers get away with it all the time so it’s fine.’ How is that an argument?
#1336·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoTo 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.
‘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?
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.#1329·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoCopyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
Another way copyright promotes creativity is that it doesn’t allow creations that aren’t sufficiently creative.
#1329·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoCopyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
Copyright encourages creativity because the most creative work is done by the original work’s creator, and copyright protects that creation.
#1329·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoCopyright is stifling to creativity, as now people are not incentivised to write fan-fictions.
People can still publish fan fiction as long as they get the copyright holder’s permission.
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 tobe followedsplit upbyinto multiple separate submissions as per #1324.)
#1323·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 6 months agoThis 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?
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.)
#1323·Dirk MeulenbeltOP, 6 months agoThis 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?
This idea contains at least two claims and one question:
- Copyright stifles creativity.
- Fan fiction does not damage creators.
- “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.
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.
#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months agoI know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!
#1222·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months agoI know. But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation, so I think Rands distinction is useful until proven false. Programs run according to their rules, while consciousness seems to transcend "its own rules", which is why it can be creative. To create rules with self-awareness isn’t an incremental improvement that logically follows from what we know of rules and programs today (as I can see it). I see there was another thread on this topic though, so I’ll go in and drop my comments there!
But we don’t don't know if consciousness can emerge as a byproduct of computation […]
We do know that. From the laws of physics. From BoI ch. 6:
[E]xpecting a computer to be able to do whatever neurons can is not a metaphor: it is a known and proven property of the laws of physics as best we know them.
#1194·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months agoWhat do you think of: it’s the fact that the law of the excluded middle that constrains the universe to exist. Nothing can’t exist, so the only alternative that’s left is for something to exist.
@knut-sondre-saebo, you write in the explanation for this revision:
I think the the law of excluded middle is more a property or constraint of existence, rather than a cause. Since we can treat universe as being something as a given, the reason it can't be something else is because the law of excluded middle constrains it to be what it is.
Revision explanations are meant to be short, eg ‘Fixed typo’ or ‘Clarified x’. Since the quote above contradicts #521, it might be worth submitting it as a criticism of #521, or as a separate idea. It doesn’t really work as a revision because revisions are for incremental changes, not for introducing contradictions.
There is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in *The Biology ofdesire.Desire*. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within themind.mind."
#1195·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months agoLogical possibilities and possible world frameworks, only works for potential states "inside" the universe right? The state of there being something or nothing in the universe doesn't have a "causal start", because the fact of something existing is an "eternal property" of the universe.
💯
#1191·Knut Sondre Sæbø, 8 months agoI misread your text. I originally read it as the whole mind is a program (or programs).
I do think the whole mind is a program (or programs).
When you make a revision to address a criticism, be sure to uncheck the corresponding criticism in the revision form, section “Do the comments still apply?”. That way, #1134 won’t show up anymore.