Activity feed
#1451·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoDo 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?
Copyright infringement usually isn’t a crime.
#1451·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoDo 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?
No I disagree, for all the reasons I already gave in response to #1346.
#1347·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months 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?
This duplicate is symptomatic of a larger and common issue of just reverting back to one’s previous arguments when one hasn’t fullyaddressedprocessed the counterarguments. Veritula helps you avoid doing that because you can just look up each idea’s ‘truth status’. If it has outstanding criticisms, you don’t invoke it again. You either save it first or work on something else.
This duplicate is symptomatic of a larger and common issue of just reverting back to one’s previous arguments when one hasn’t fully addressed the counterarguments. Veritula helps you avoid doing that because you can just look up each idea’s ‘truth status’. If it has outstanding criticisms, you don’t invoke it again. You either save it first or work on something else.
#1447·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoJust 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.
Duplicate of #1346.
#1371·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months 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.
The comment has since been removed.#1371·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
#1442·Amaro Koberle, 6 months 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.
Duplicate of #1346.
#1442·Amaro Koberle, 6 months 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, 6 months 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.
#1439·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoBut 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.
You 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).
#1439·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoBut 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.
You never agreed to buy the bike either, that’s the point.
#1437·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months 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.
#1436·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThere, 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?
Just returning the bike doesn’t necessarily make him whole. Maybe he lost revenues during the time he couldn’t use his bike.
#1436·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoThere, 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?
Maybe 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.
#1392·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months 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?
Duplicate of#1392.#1386. Repeating an argument that has outstanding criticisms doesn’t address the criticisms. You can address the criticisms or revise the argument or abandon the argument.
#1429·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoBut 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.
Circular due to #1392.
#1429·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoBut 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.
Duplicate of #1392. Repeating an argument that has outstanding criticisms doesn’t address the criticisms. You can address the criticisms or revise the argument or abandon the argument.
#1428·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months 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.
#1427·Amaro Koberle, 6 months agoSo 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?
Not 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).
#1392·Dennis Hackethal, 6 months 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?