6 ms·

There's an old idea that once you release something you have created into the wild it is no longer really yours, but ours. Copyright and IP have never really pr

There's an old idea that once you release something you have created into the wild it is no longer really yours, but ours. Copyright and IP have never really prevented artistic theft, just slowed the ability to make money using someone else's IP. However, when you consider things such as the success of "Old Country Road" where a core characteristic of the song was a sample not originated from the artist themself, you can see how copyright and IP law really don't mean anything in the world of art. Information still wants to be free

PeterStuer 6y ago
In a world that is rapidly changing into tightly controlled presentation channels, banning of not tightly controlled information sharing channels, and ubiquitous AI backed bots sifting through any exchange in search of even the most farfetched resemblance and where spurious strikes mean tried guilty and sentenced until proven innocent, that point of view might be a tad naive. Information never wanted to be free. It has no will. The freedom was the result of many people willing to stand against its confinement.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- devilduck 6y ago
  I don't know why you felt like you needed to try to explain to me that information has no will of it's own, speaking of naivete. Perhaps you are familiar with the idea of metaphor? Additionally, "information wants to be free" is an old hacker adage, in case you weren't aware of that.
jkepler 6y ago
"Artistic theft" isn't really ethically theft if someone has simply copied a work. Imagine a small village. If John makes an axe, and Jim sees it and copies it, did Jim steal John's axe? Seems like there's only theft occurring if Jim claims to have designed it himself---stealing some of John's reputation as the designer and first maker of that kind of axe. Doesn't the whole village benefit from more abundant chopped wood? Or perhaps from cheaper lumber prices? True, John now has competition chopping wood, but perhaps he's got an advantage as a designer and he'll soon specialize as a carpenter or tool designer rather than just a wood chopper. Couldn't it be possible that copying ideas and attributing the persons who originate them enriches the entire village---including those who came up with the new ideas? I find Christian philosopher Vern Poythress's ethical reasons why we should advocate for changing copyright laws to be insightful and persuasive... and I learned the axe inventor example from his article, https://frame-poythress.org/copyrights-and-copying-why-the-laws-should-be-changed/ https://frame-poythress.org/copyrights-and-copying-why-the-l....
- devilduck 6y ago
  I'm not sure if you actually read what I wrote, but when John makes the axe and is presented in the real world for others to see, the idea is that it is no longer his, which is what I was saying. IP and copyright laws attempt to allow John to be the sole owner of the idea of the axe, but we all know that is not a war that can really be won.

PeterStuer 6y ago

In a world that is rapidly changing into tightly controlled presentation channels, banning of not tightly controlled information sharing channels, and ubiquitous AI backed bots sifting through any exchange in search of even the most farfetched resemblance and where spurious strikes mean tried guilty and sentenced until proven innocent, that point of view might be a tad naive. Information never wanted to be free. It has no will. The freedom was the result of many people willing to stand against its confinement.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
devilduck 6y ago
I don't know why you felt like you needed to try to explain to me that information has no will of it's own, speaking of naivete. Perhaps you are familiar with the idea of metaphor? Additionally, "information wants to be free" is an old hacker adage, in case you weren't aware of that.

jkepler 6y ago

"Artistic theft" isn't really ethically theft if someone has simply copied a work. Imagine a small village. If John makes an axe, and Jim sees it and copies it, did Jim steal John's axe? Seems like there's only theft occurring if Jim claims to have designed it himself---stealing some of John's reputation as the designer and first maker of that kind of axe. Doesn't the whole village benefit from more abundant chopped wood? Or perhaps from cheaper lumber prices? True, John now has competition chopping wood, but perhaps he's got an advantage as a designer and he'll soon specialize as a carpenter or tool designer rather than just a wood chopper. Couldn't it be possible that copying ideas and attributing the persons who originate them enriches the entire village---including those who came up with the new ideas? I find Christian philosopher Vern Poythress's ethical reasons why we should advocate for changing copyright laws to be insightful and persuasive... and I learned the axe inventor example from his article, https://frame-poythress.org/copyrights-and-copying-why-the-laws-should-be-changed/ https://frame-poythress.org/copyrights-and-copying-why-the-l....

devilduck 6y ago
I'm not sure if you actually read what I wrote, but when John makes the axe and is presented in the real world for others to see, the idea is that it is no longer his, which is what I was saying. IP and copyright laws attempt to allow John to be the sole owner of the idea of the axe, but we all know that is not a war that can really be won.