Dennis Hackethal
Member since June 2024
Activity
#1447 · Amaro Koberle, 4 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.
The comment has since been removed.#1371 · Dennis Hackethal, 4 months agoSo… the law extending to others’ property is nothing new and not totalitarian in and of itself.
#1442 · Amaro Koberle, 4 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.
#1439 · Amaro Koberle, 4 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, 4 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.
#1436 · Amaro Koberle, 4 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, 4 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.
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, 4 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, 4 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.
#1427 · Amaro Koberle, 4 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).
#1425 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoThere'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.
Yeah. And if he takes it against your will and replaces it with a brand new bike it’s still theft.
#1421 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoIt's a good point, but I don't think those two compare. Again, bicycles are scarce. My use prevents your use.
It’s about value not physical scarcity. If you only steal it while I’m asleep and return it before I wake up and want to use it it’s still theft.
#1421 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoIt's a good point, but I don't think those two compare. Again, bicycles are scarce. My use prevents your use.
Duplicate of #1346.
#1417 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoMidjourney wouldn't exist... Our cool pics of Mujahideen eating Bacon wouldn't exist.
‘Couriers who jump start their careers by stealing bicycles wouldn’t exist.’
#1417 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoMidjourney wouldn't exist... Our cool pics of Mujahideen eating Bacon wouldn't exist.
#1413 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoI 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.
I doubt it.
You just say that without any reasoning.
#1413 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoI 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.
I doubt it.
Unclear what “it” refers to.
#1413 · Amaro Koberle, 4 months agoI 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.
Duplicate of #1329.
They 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’.
LLM coders should come up with something else that doesn’t steal value.
I should say, the issue of LLMs isn’t entirely clear cut since they don’t actually redistribute any text. So their output may not be a copyright violation in the original sense. Could maybe be a derivative work of the training data though (see #1322).
There are a lot of open legal questions about AI. See https://hawleytroxell.com/insights/how-i-really-feel-about-chatgpt-from-an-ip-lawyers-perspective/. For example:
Copyright owners and patent holders have no recourse against infringing, illegal AI output since the law has not yet caught up to create a remedy. So if I ask ChatGPT to write me some Star Wars fan fiction and I then place that content on the internet or sell it on Amazon, Disney has no remedy—except to sue me somehow, because they are Disney and have a lot of money.
And:
I cannot register copyrights in content authored by an AI because I am not the author, and the AI cannot register its own copyrights because it lacks personhood.