31–40 of 55 posts
For a whole 30 seconds of fight action?
The fight felt like a scam. I wouldn't be surprised if Askren heavily bet against himself after hyping himself and presenting the fight as an easy win.
For a whole 30 seconds of fight action?
Don't people have a right to their property?
This restriction is supposed to be justified by society benefiting from the useful arts and sciences. I don't see a two-bit fight fitting that bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't consider ip property. So the answer is it's complicated.
> I don't consider ip property Wait, what?
But we have inexhaustible supplies of 0s and 1s, and words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't consider ip property Wait, what?
Well one of the defining characteristics of property is that there is finite amounts of it. But we have inexhaustible supplies of 0s and 1s, and words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't people have a right to their property?
I don't consider ip property. So the answer is it's complicated.
Property isn't defined by quantity or finiteness. It's anything, real or otherwise, for which ownership consists of a set of rights to control the exploitation (aka "use") of the thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.
"to limit people from certain bit arrangements" I don't understand how things can apparently have no restrictions just because it comes down to "digital bits". Life and the physical objects within it are "just ~~bits~~ molecules", that we re-arrange in specific ways. People spend time making things that we like and enjoy. Observing that as "certain bit arrangements" completely downplays the work and ideas that the au…
Physical things are scarce thus we are face with the inherent choice of deciding whom has the privilege of eating a sandwich or living in a particular house. The method of distributing goods is often capricious, unfair, subject to every existing bias but at least it represents a choice we must make. We can't both eat the whole sandwich.
A pattern of bits isn't a physical thing in the same class at all it is a restriction on which bits 2 parties unrelated in every fashion to the creator may transmit between each other. It's not a sandwich it is a recipe. It is granting a singular owner the privilege over say the concept of ham and cheese on white bread and demanding that people not make each other sandwiches that are identical in construction to the "owner" of that recipe under the theory that this will encourage people to develop more new and exciting sandwich types.
We aren't throwing ownership out the window. In fact traditional ownership never came in the window in the first place its a mile up in orbit. What you are arguing for is an entirely different class of thing in need of its own thought process and justification. If you are going to justify it then it must necessarily be on its own terms with its own implications not by leaning overmuch on traditional property.
Pretending its the same leads to many logically nonsensical things like Sony Bonos widow suggesting that copyright ought to be forever like owning a house so that the numerous and useless great great grandchildren of the creative who have nothing to offer us can tax all of creation to pay for the drugs they will probably end their pointless lives with. All of art is derivative thus endless copyright would cede all of the creative universe to the heirs of the current creative class who weren't burdened by paying tax to their predecessors. Alternatively logically nonsense like eventually all common reasonable arrangements of notes belonging to somebody.
The truth is copyright was invented as a tax on society to gift to the rich and useless and only then adapted as a method to ensure publishers paid writers in an era when printing was expensive. Even now most of the money sticks to business people not creators. We would be well rid of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Givernment granted monopolies are not property.
Uh... they aren't? They can be bought and sold. A company is a government-granted monopoly on the resources of that company, including its contracts with employees and contracts for services. You can buy and sell that company. Originally, all corporations were government-granted charters, and a lot of that notion is retained. Government manages your monopoly over your real estate -- if somebody tries to use it you're…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't consider ip property. So the answer is it's complicated.
"ip" = "intellectual property". It's literally in the name. Property isn't defined by quantity or finiteness. It's anything, real or otherwise, for which ownership consists of a set of rights to control the exploitation (aka "use") of the thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"to limit people from certain bit arrangements" I don't understand how things can apparently have no restrictions just because it comes down to "digital bits". Life and the physical objects within it are "just ~~bits~~ molecules", that we re-arrange in specific ways. People spend time making things that we like and enjoy. Observing that as "certain bit arrangements" completely downplays the work and ideas that the au…
You are just deliberately misunderstanding. You can argue for IP if you please but please don't pretend that IP and property share anything but an analogy. Just because information can be used to describe anything doesn't imply that physical things and ownership tags on patterns of bits that decode to tagged patterns are even remotely the same they are actually in opposition. Physical things are scarce thus we are fa…
Nothing is being constructed by the end user. A music album is a finished product, encoded into bits from an original creation by the author. This is a side-effect of how computers innately function, and doesn't change the fact that authors are -not- selling recipes to build products, they are selling finished products. There is no difference ideologically between selling an LP or a CD or a zipped download; the encoding and distribution mechanisms are different, but the customer still purchased the same thing: a complete product that can be played by equipment that understands how to decode and play it.
If someone singularly came up with a song, then of course they are the singular owner. Making art and music is a complex process, and specifically with music production one ends up with things that have never been constructed in that particular musical and instrumental arrangement, that key, with those musical ideas, those rhythms and note placements, etc. To say that ownership is just impossible ignores essentially -all- of the work that goes into making things like music. It's not like someone just pushes a button and calls it a day...
"Pretending its the same leads to many logically nonsensical things"
No, companies will always make absolutely ridiculous claims for copyright. Whether it's digital or not. This is separate to the idea of ownership of something whether digital or not.
"All of art is derivative thus endless copyright would cede all of the creative universe"
No one is arguing that people can claim copyright ownership on any and all works that may have been inspired from it. This is a strawman argument and also has nothing to do with digital vs physical copyright. It also completely ignores that songs, etc, are much more than mere constructions of notes.
The current implementations of copyright protection are pretty bad.. But that doesn't mean the idea in general is bad. Artists, just like anyone else, need to get paid for their work. You and I do not automatically deserve things just because they are distributed electronically now. Artists still deserve to have ownership of the things they create, even if they distribute them electronically.
No one is forcing anyone to go out and buy music or other art, it is an elective choice because one specifically desires that exact sound, which can be distributed as bits now. However, people aren't going out and "buying bits", they are buying specific products. The fact that things can be represented as bits is entirely irrelevant to both parties aside from not needing to lug around physical items.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't people have a right to their property?
Indeed they do. For example my hard drive belongs to me and yours to you. There is no way I can arrange the pattern of magnetic ones and zeros such that it magically becomes YOUR property in any way that any proponent of traditional property would understand. That is to say imaginary property is a set of restrictions on how I am allowed to use my actual property. This restriction is supposed to be justified by societ…
So people like you and me don't pay money to watch fighting. So far we agree.
But we differ here: I think it's fine of _other_ people pay money to watch fighting. And I think if someone produces a fighting program, he has the right to try to make some money from it.