151–160 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no IP protection, it is illogical to invest money in new materials R&D or medicines.
Illogical for the private sector. Publicly funded research is probably more effective anyway though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is no IP protection, it is illogical to invest money in new materials R&D or medicines.
Unless it takes real skill, real knowledge to create the workforce and tooling necessary to produce such a thing. With no IP protection I'm pretty sure that good old-fashioned corporate secrecy would still be quite profitable. If in the case of medicines, instead of having carte-blanche to milk obscene profits for a long time, corpos were just limited to making decent money for a short while....that would probably wo…
> Back in the day, programs like Napster had everyone believing that we shouldn’t have to pay for music. Back in the day, broadcast radio stations had everyone believing that we shouldn't have to pay for music. In 2023, we have youtube to thank for that. > If I own something, why shouldn’t I be able to share it with whoever I want? Good argument, especially since many intangible goods, such as MP3 files, are non-riva…
> Good argument, especially since many intangible goods, such as MP3 files, are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. so the deeper question is 'what does it mean to own something'. For a physical good, it's fairly straight forward. For a digital good that can be copied infinitely and perfectly, it's not. The current definition of ownership seems to be broken down into a set of "rights". Sharing it with somebody else is…
As I understand it, the Audio Home Recording act legalized mix tapes and mixes on DAT and "music" CD-R media. It's why "music" CD-Rs cost more (the DART royalty.)
In fact Apple still provides software (Music/iTunes) that allows you to burn purchased songs from the iTunes Store onto CDs:
https://support.apple.com/guide/music/intro-to-burning-cds-a...
Initially they hadplaced limits on how many times you could burn the same song, but Apple removed the restrictions and eventually upgraded all of iTunes to DRM-free (but watermarked) iTunes Plus in 2009.
Unfortunately it does not support burning "rented" songs from Apple Music or Spotify. I guess that's what Audio Hijack is for.
And sadly iTunes never got an upgrade to a lossless format while Apple Music streaming did. I guess that's a good reason to buy tracks from other sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero seconds. IP protections are theft of future creativity, and a form of regulatory capture. If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking in the first place. And in practice the only rightsholders who benefit from enforcement of these "protections" are those who can afford to litigate them. Thus, it's a form of regulator…
If there is no IP protection, it is illogical to invest money in new materials R&D or medicines.
I imagine R&D and medicines would be funded by organisations founded by Government, Teaching hospitals, Drug producing companies coming together to share the costs. Would be great to avoid wasted effort as well.
The Large Hadron Collider was completed, and yet isn't producing much profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Illogical for the private sector. Publicly funded research is probably more effective anyway though.
The US tried that post WW2, turns out if you can print money there isn't a lot of incentive to work nights and weekends getting something out the door for government pay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Illogical for the private sector. Publicly funded research is probably more effective anyway though.
The US tried that post WW2, turns out if you can print money there isn't a lot of incentive to work nights and weekends getting something out the door for government pay.
I have friends who do research - their primary motivation isnt pay. The private sector exploits their passion by paying mediocre wages while the CEOs of these companies rake in millions. This is demotivating to say the least.
An efficient system compared to the public sector it is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zero seconds. IP protections are theft of future creativity, and a form of regulatory capture. If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking in the first place. And in practice the only rightsholders who benefit from enforcement of these "protections" are those who can afford to litigate them. Thus, it's a form of regulator…
Ok I support anti corporation but then how do talented artists make money? I don’t get this mentality and how it’s always taken to the extreme. Surely there’s some value to at least the artisan to be compensated for his creation?
> Surely there’s some value to at least the artisan to be compensated for his creation?
Try telling publishers that. Why are those writers striking again?
It's taken to the extreme because that's what you need to shift entrenched interests that produce nothing of value, like those that hold IP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a question along the similar lines. Let's extend your analogy. Someone read all J.K Rowling books and created a work in that style. Would that be a copyright violation? I'm assuming not. In that case, is that difference here that it's not humanely possible to train on world's information compared to a single human getting inspired by specific works. And hence an algo doing that is violation?
It's an interesting thought experiment but if the goal is to decide whether we should allow these types of AIs to be used for commercial purposes I think it's more helpful to ask a different question. If we had these LLMs 30 years ago would J.K Rowling's books ever have existed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US tried that post WW2, turns out if you can print money there isn't a lot of incentive to work nights and weekends getting something out the door for government pay.
Damn. Imagine how relieved the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima must feel about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good argument, especially since many intangible goods, such as MP3 files, are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. so the deeper question is 'what does it mean to own something'. For a physical good, it's fairly straight forward. For a digital good that can be copied infinitely and perfectly, it's not. The current definition of ownership seems to be broken down into a set of "rights". Sharing it with somebody else is…
> More importantly, you're not purchasing the rights to share it with somebody As I understand it, the Audio Home Recording act legalized mix tapes and mixes on DAT and "music" CD-R media. It's why "music" CD-Rs cost more (the DART royalty.) In fact Apple still provides software (Music/iTunes) that allows you to burn purchased songs from the iTunes Store onto CDs: https://support.apple.com/guide/music/intro-to-burnin…