Search ideas

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?

Edit: Dennis points out that copyright infringement is generally not treated as a crime. Perhaps I should have said: “[…] should be considered unlawful,” or “[…] should entitle the original author to seek a court order (e.g., a cease-and-desist) backed by state enforcement.”

Fair. I don't know much about the laws around this but I'll take your word for it.

Was there any other reason besides the claim that my argument rests on the “physical” nature of private property? If not, I believe I have already addressed that criticism. I don’t actually think property rests on physicality, but rather on whether something is zero-sum or non-zero-sum, physical or not. A useful concept in this context is “rivalry” in economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

I can also think of ways this could be misused.

Edit: This alone is not a sufficient argument to discredit laws against defamation.

No disagreement here.

I don’t think the issue hinges on whether something is physically scarce, whatever that’s supposed to mean. After all, all information is physical, as David Deutsch likes to emphasize. The real distinction is this: stealing someone’s digital money deprives them of the ability to use it, while copying someone’s novel does not prevent the author from accessing or using their own work. The former is zero-sum; the latter is not.

https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/reflections-on-rat-fest-25

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons [as in pre-Einsteinian physics] or to a curvature of space and time.

I’m getting conflicting results online for this quote. Some sources that quote the same passage say singular ‘effect’, others use the plural like Deutsch does.

I don’t have access to the original text, so I can’t say for sure if this is possibly a slight misquote or if different people are just quoting different editions.

Do explanations have to be expressible?

Any filtered idea should always display only the count of shown criticisms.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

An explanation could accompany the n / m display, like a title on hover.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

How will people know what n / m means?

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms, which would be bad for error correction.

See #1999: “People could easily miss or forget that.”

People could easily miss or forget that.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there’s never any confusion as to 1) whether a filtered idea has any pending criticisms, 2) a filtered idea having more criticisms than are being rendered.

See #1992: “The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.”

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people. More generally, any mismatch between rendered vs counted criticisms could confuse people.

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people.

For all ideas, the total number of pending criticisms (if any) should always be shown, even if they are not all being rendered.

The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.