Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "this PS4 jailbreak is sort of hilarious" video.
-
5
-
@mskiptr
[1/4]
My problem is indeed with copyright in general, but copyleft is a special instance of it so this is part of the reason.
Also, without clarification your "artificial concept" thing does not make much sense, I understand in what sense in my understanding intellectual property is artificial (it needs to be maintained by the state using coercion for it to exist), but this don't apply to "all property in a way" (except you are using a concept as broad as saying "artificial is when it is only appliable in humans" or something in this line). But I will not be pedantic on this, intellectual property is so artificial that for it to be possible you even need to violate normal private property.
[2/4]
I also don't like the term "ancap utopia", what I defend is possible right there and now and I live it everyday to a certain extent. Also, I find the notion that "as we don't live in a fair world, so we should play the game and do unfair things" extremelly problematic.
[3/4] & [4/4]
I mostly agree with the overhall feeling of this, but not with some pressupositions and conclusions, so I'll quote them and respond accordingly. To simplify the discussion and make it more productive, I'm handling patents, copyrights and everything else as in the same corresponding place as IP in general.
> Because someone else learning about your idea let's them do as much as you can, some people will try hard to never let that happen which is usually a ton of unproductive effort.
I don't think this is strictly true, no. I think the original promoter of an idea has a novelty effect, a pioneerism, over the rest of the competition. His name is part of the idea and the product he offers, and this has some impact over how things will play. Also, this pressuposes that the idea is shallow and already written in stone, many ideas can improve in different manners over time, and the person that came with the idea have an advantage over people that only copied it, his mind is already given with the shape of the idea and his ability to give rise to interesting things is a factor.
> Yes, they are a bit unfair towards people that might have invented the same thing independently.
In this case it would not be just "a bit unfair", it would be absolutely, extremely and terribly unfair. I don't understand why you are smoothing the real problem in this scenario, of blocking people of having the same idea as you did as if you were the owner of the idea floating in their minds (even with them having come with it independently).
> But if they are only granted for a short time and only for novel ideas, these cases should be very rare.
I don't think this is measurable, and also, what is a "short time" and what is the scope of "only for novel ideas". Who will judge and decide over these two: you, some corporation, the state?
> On the other hand, they provide an awesome alternative to hiding your invention and they encourage sharing your knowledge. Overall a massive improvement for just a small potential injustice. Imo a worthy sacrifice.
I don't think people would just "hide their inventions" and "not share knowledge" just because IP was not a thing, just as they had ideas and shared them way before IP being a thing on itself. Property only makes sense because people can steal them from you, alienate over your control and violate your self, it don't exist to "incentivate production" or "to make it worth for you to having a business", it's existence is not conditioned on whatever profits it may or may not give to you. The same should be a valid thing for IP, I don't see why I someone should be punished or imprisioned just because someone will get mad if "his idea" is not being enforced by law. I have no problem with IP being a thing people joke around like "oh look I made this, this is mine so you can't have it", I have a problem when this means "you are now obligated to pay me for your 'unfair' use of my idea, if you don't pay me you will be imprisioned, and if you resist enought you will be killed", and this is precisely what people say in reality when they are defending this "incentive of not hiding ideas".
Moreover, open source is a thing today already, and it shows people are willing to contribute, have ideas and share them even when they are intentionally putting their code into a domain that anyone else can freely copy, modify and distribute (like putting the code in MIT, BSD, Apache-2, and some other funny ones), so you don't need to believe in the fable that IP is "the thing" that makes people have ideas and share them.
You also should ask yourself if this is "worth it" when it also means that healthcare for example will be so much more costly than it needs to be, and the production of medicine is being monopolized by a few industries that have IP rights, making the lifes of potentially millions of people that would in a free market have a much better quality of life in the hands of people that don't care about IP.
> With inventions, they likely wouldn't have access to it otherwise, but can we confidently say that without copyright people wouldn't usually share their works? I'm not really sure
I really don't know, but I don't think this justifies your position in this same sense. I know for example that people shared knowledge and had novel ideas before IP laws were a thing, I know people would still demand and have needs for things if it was not a reality today, so my position is that this is way more probable than not. Either way, I don't use this to justify the entirety of what I believe, this is just a bonus, my reason is that using coercion in people to enforce that laws is a problematic and unjustified thing.
> Also, why the heck software falls under copyright like books or movies and not under patents like other utilitarian works? It doesn't make much sense imo.
I think because software is also creative work to some extent, and it has to be some originality when writting it. But these are things you should be asking yourself about, I don't think they should be.
Also, what is your defende of GPL here again? If you believe that patents, copyright and IP in general should be a thing without much regards, why are you having problems with normal proprietary software? Or do you just think GPL is really just another form of IP and (as you defend them all) this is why you are defending it?
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1