Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

If we could perfectly duplicate objects without any cost, then the modern society would fall down quicker than you could say "whoops".

And yet people would still try to copyright things anyway.

C₆H₁₂O₆ property of Disney.

[werty892]

I expect this to be the dominant issue in the next election cycle.

[Criptfeind]

I expect this to be the dominant issue in the next election cycle.

Why? There doesn't seem to be a large amount of money opposing draconian copywrite laws. Who's going to be on the other side?

[Sergarr]

I expect this to be the dominant issue in the next election cycle.

Why? There doesn't seem to be a large amount of money opposing draconian copywrite laws. Who's going to be on the other side?

Terrorism was also an issue, and whoo boy I don't think there was anyone on that side.

[Loud Whispers]

It sounds like the digital analogue of this:
- random guy finds meteorite fragment, puts it on display
- thief steals it, claims it was never random guy's property as it just fell from the heavens and he doesn't own the heavens
- people joining in, claiming that thief is right because random guy gave up all his ownership by putting it on display.

Incomparable, the photographer still has the picture. He has not lost anything.

Indeed, the digital analogue would be:
- Random person #1 unearths a meteorite fragment and puts a photo of it on display, having his agent manage who can view it and charging people to view it. Random person #1 gets royalties from this.
- Random person #2 shows up and takes a copy of that photo and spreads the photo around libraries. People can now view it without having to pay the agent.
- Strawmen join in.

Yes it is.
An information's worth is the use you get from knowing something. The worth of information is often highly increased if only a few know it. Thus by spreading it or not being able to control its ownership, you lost almost all of your informations value. Thus by taking a copy, you actively decreases the informational content by decreasing its uniqueness, rendering it worth less, thus effectively stealing some value from the owner.

-From a later quote-
Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿

Why would you think monetizing this knowledge is acceptable? Similarly why shouldn't someone simply be able to tell others which door leads to paradise and which leads to certain doom?
By spreading the message you have not decreased its value as its value is inherently great; offering people the chance to paradise free from fear of doom is knowledge that never becomes pointless knowledge. All you have done is rendered the man charging people $1 for information that they can readily access for free obsolete. All this talk of literally stemming the tide of information simply to make things "unique" and exploitable is literally putrid in the Information Age.

[Aklyon]

It sounds like the digital analogue of this:
- random guy finds meteorite fragment, puts it on display
- thief steals it, claims it was never random guy's property as it just fell from the heavens and he doesn't own the heavens
- people joining in, claiming that thief is right because random guy gave up all his ownership by putting it on display.

Incomparable, the photographer still has the picture. He has not lost anything.

Indeed, the digital analogue would be:
- Random person #1 unearths a meteorite fragment and puts a photo of it on display, having his agent manage who can view it and charging people to view it. Random person #1 gets royalties from this.
- Random person #2 shows up and takes a copy of that photo and spreads the photo around libraries. People can now view it without having to pay the agent.
- Strawmen join in.

Yes it is.
An information's worth is the use you get from knowing something. The worth of information is often highly increased if only a few know it. Thus by spreading it or not being able to control its ownership, you lost almost all of your informations value. Thus by taking a copy, you actively decreases the informational content by decreasing its uniqueness, rendering it worth less, thus effectively stealing some value from the owner.

-From a later quote-
Let me also give an example on the worth of an information:
I am one of those guys guarding two doors, one of which leads to your certain doom, the other to paradise. You ask me which one is the correct one and (morals aside) I offer you the correct information for just $1. We agree on you paying me after you checked. Indeed, my recommendation was correct (I would gain nothing by lying to you anyway), but now you claim that as this was just an information, or only the abstract words "use the left door", or something similiar, you don't have to pay me.

Now why would you think this is ok¿

Why would you think monetizing this knowledge is acceptable? Similarly why shouldn't someone simply be able to tell others which door leads to paradise and which leads to certain doom?
By spreading the message you have not decreased its value as its value is inherently great; offering people the chance to paradise free from fear of doom is knowledge that never becomes pointless knowledge. All you have done is rendered the man charging people $1 for information that they can readily access for free obsolete. All this talk of literally stemming the tide of information simply to make things "unique" and exploitable is literally putrid in the Information Age.

I agree with Loud Whispers. Losing money because you have lost a physical object is not the same as losing money something because the middleman has been obsoleted.

[ZetaX]

Half of those objections were already answered, please read the whole thread next time before replying to something two pages back.
Anyway, that man rendered obsolete therefore lost his income. How is that not a loss for him¿

On this weird discussion on duplicating objects: a real life object's value is not just in having or controling it, but also in it being useful or valuable in another way. Like having a car allows you to drive.

[Aklyon]

Anyway, that man rendered obsolete therefore lost his income. How is that not a loss for him?

You are not guaranteed an income for an effectively-unlimited amount of time just because you did something notable enough to copyright, similar to how the Sherlock Holmes estate recently found out. If he find a new unrevealed secret, he can sell access to that one. Otherwise, he will have to find a new job like everyone else does if they lose their job.

[Graknorke]

Anyway, that man rendered obsolete therefore lost his income. How is that not a loss for him?

You are not guaranteed an income for an effectively-unlimited amount of time just because you did something notable enough to copyright, similar to how the Sherlock Holmes estate recently found out. If he find a new unrevealed secret, he can sell access to that one. Otherwise, he will have to find a new job like everyone else does if they lose their job.

There's a SMBC for that.

[ZetaX]

Anyway, that man rendered obsolete therefore lost his income. How is that not a loss for him?

You are not guaranteed an income for an effectively-unlimited amount of time just because you did something notable enough to copyright, similar to how the Sherlock Holmes estate recently found out. If he find a new unrevealed secret, he can sell access to that one. Otherwise, he will have to find a new job like everyone else does if they lose their job.

No, not forever, but the story I gave does not talk about that. The story was about explaining why information has a nonzero value and about nothing else. All those objections are completely missing the point. You for example only argued that it should (this is a moral question) not have infinite value; I am ok with that, but as I said, it has nothing to do with that story.

[Aklyon]

The story is beside the point then, you asked how it would effect the man, not the story of nonzero value information. The information's value would not be affected by the guard no longer being there, since people will still want to know which door is which, and will go look or ask someone else if they want to know. Some places/people will want them to pay for access and some will just tell them, It is only less valuable in the eyes of the now-jobless man, since before it was giving him money and now it is not.

[ZetaX]

It was also about the decrease in value by sharing information, which I forgot to repeat. It still is not about the long term development or the morals involved.
And it is also less valuable in the eyes of everyone by this economy of supply and demand, with supply now being significantly increased (and demand insignificantly decreased).

[Aklyon]

Not everything must be owned, slathered in permissions, or sold to be worthwhile. At this point it just sounds like you're trying to make out sharing as a bad thing because you want to squeeze more economics out of people interested in the information.

[ZetaX]

That's now just a non-sequitur. Shall I now give you an equally irrelevant answer about how you seemingly want total communism for communisms sake¿

If someone wants (and is allowed) to share, then this is his decision, as he can do with his owned information almost anything, like with any other goods he might posess. This thread is obviously about a case where the potential owner does not want it to be spread.

[Eagle_eye]

And it is also less valuable in the eyes of everyone by this economy of supply and demand, with supply now being significantly increased (and demand insignificantly decreased).

You're mixing up value and price. How much people value something may change with rarity, but that's a fairly small factor except in the case of things that are valued solely because of rarity- ie, precious gemstones. People value things according to how much they think possessing it will benefit them, and a picture of a monkey isn't going to be any more aesthetically appealing or funny because you had to pay for it.

It's the price that's decreasing: nobody will pay more than they have to for it. That doesn't mean it's intrinsically worth less.


As for the main topic of the thread, the photographer didn't take it, and he didn't deliberately cause the monkey to take it. He just happened to possess the camera after the monkey took the picture. For him to claim authorship is like an art teacher claiming they created a student's painting because they put them in a situation where they chose to create it and then picked it up as part of an assignment.