Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th May 2011 22:40 UTC, submitted by twitterfire
Internet & Networking "John Perry Barlow - EFF co-founder, Grateful Dead lyricist, and, improbably, now a rancher - arrived in Paris and began tweeting up a storm from the e-G8 summit gathered there this week to discuss the future of the Internet." Incredible what Sarkozy is planning - how about he focus on the many problems in France the people there are actually suffering from?
Thread beginning with comment 474697
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Synthetic scarcity
by Timmmm on Thu 26th May 2011 12:54 UTC in reply to "Synthetic scarcity"
Timmmm
Member since:
2006-07-25

"Property is something that can be taken from me. If I don't have it, somebody else does.

It is a pity that wise words are but gibberish to the ears of fools


Yeah but unfortunately it's not true:

"property

The right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership
- rights of property"

Why is it that so many arguments against stringent copyright rules are pathetic attempts to redefine words (e.g. "I'm not technically 'stealing' so it's ok.").

We can bestow property-ness upon ideas using laws if we want to. Give an actual argument why is it bad to do that - don't just say "idea's aren't property, so you can't own them".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Synthetic scarcity
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th May 2011 13:06 in reply to "RE: Synthetic scarcity"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

We can bestow property-ness upon ideas using laws if we want to.


Keywords: we, want.

"We" do not "want" such laws. At least, not in their current form. We live in (what are claimed to be) democracies, and that means that laws exist to serve US, and not the other way around. As a result, if "we" collectively decide we do not longer "want" a law (as has clearly happened with the case of copyright), then such laws become meaningless. Laws are only legitimate because we collectively decide to follow them, because we see merit in them - and NOT because some guy in a suit tells us to.

That's why common knee-jerk responses like "So if I want to kill someone I should just be able to disregard the law?" are missing the point completely - you'll be hard-pressed to find many people who believe we should not follow laws against murder in the same way we do not follow copyright law.

The people are usually quicker to adapt to changing morals than than lawmakers do. Big content will try to pour more and more money to buy laws, but in the end, it's futile - you can buy lawmakers, but you can't buy the people.

Edited 2011-05-26 13:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Synthetic scarcity
by phoudoin on Thu 26th May 2011 14:08 in reply to "RE: Synthetic scarcity"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Because ideas are ruled by quantic rules: when one observe an idea, 1) it duplicates instantly in his mind and 2) both original and clone ideas starts to change on their own.

You can only *own* an idea if you keep it away from any observation *forever*. As soon as you start to show it, whatever under which condition, it duplicates.

That's the point. You can't ask people mind to *not* store new knowledge.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Synthetic scarcity
by phoudoin on Thu 26th May 2011 14:13 in reply to "RE: Synthetic scarcity"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"The right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership
- rights of property"

You can't lost the right to possess an idea until you lost your mind ability to keep it there.

You can't lost the right to use an idea until your lost your mind ability to use it.

You can't lost the right to dispose an idea until you lost your mind ability to forget about it.

It's not an issue of idea being a property or not.
It's an issue of idea being an *exclusive* property or not.

To which I've already replied, above.

Edited 2011-05-26 14:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3