Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kliment | Hacker News Reader

I agree with you, and indeed that is where the argument lies. You have deprived the owner of the design of their right to determine how that design is distributed, in a sense. Whether there is such a thing as legitimate ownership of intellectual property and whether this right in itself is legitimate is a different question. All I ask is that we do not conflate ownership of the copy with ownership of the rights to the design.

View on HN

>> You have deprived the owner of the design of their right to determine how that design is distributed, in a sense.

But the whole notion of 'right to determine how IP is distributed' is an artificial, and very recent creation. Why should people have such rights? Why do we need them when we functioned fine as a society for so many millennia without them.

The whole notion of 'freedom' is an artificial and very recent creation. We functioned fine as a society for so many millennia with slavery.

Well trolled.

In actual fact, there's more 'slaves' today than at any time in history.

For one, legalized slavery in the US - prisoners are forced to manufacture household appliances, number plates, military uniforms etc. If they refuse, they get solitary confinement and other punishments.

Perhaps the concept of 'freedom' is a good one, but it doesn't map in any way to the real world.

It's not like they created the concept of 'freedom' and then slavery ended.

Sure. And I'm in no way arguing for that notion. What I am arguing against is confusing the theft of a copy or object with interfering with said right, legitimate or not. My point is that you have not deprived the owner of the copy/object/medium of anything, but that is a straw man. The real question is whether these rights, which are in fact being violated by the reproduction, are legitimate. I agree with you that they are generally not, from my own moral perspective at least.

The means of mass reproduction (e.g. the printing press) have not existed for nearly so long as you seem to think.

A definition of traditional (tangible, physical) property is easier to formalize than your vague notion of a "design." Basically, traditional property is an item with mass that is scarce (can only be in one location at a time).

What's your definition of a design? If I simply think of "the first prime number with 500 billion decimal digits," do I instantly command the right to control the distribution of that number?

I'd define a design as the information sufficient to produce a copy that is to some degree recognizable as the original (in terms of visuals, aesthetic effect, etc). An ornamental cup is separable in a sense, you can make a matching saucer with the same pattern of ornamentation, and you can also make a cup without the ornament on it. In one case it is a copy of the function, in the other a copy of the design. There has been some degree of discussion about this in relation to the 3d printing revolution that is currently happening (which I'm very happy to be part of, my printers are happily replicating). Here's some links if you're interested in the sense in which "design" is used in relation to physical objects:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1689527 (Focused on UK and European laws) http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-do... (Focused on US IP laws)

I do not believe there is a counter-argument to the "treating data as large numbers makes it ridiculous to assert control over it". I agree with you on this point. Unfortunately, the law will need to be modernized to take that into account, and that has not yet happened.

It's in society's interest to compensate creators for their work. But it was a terrible idea to grant them the power to control which other people use that work, and how. It should be work for hire, or supported by a tax, or anything that doesn't so severely damage the work's value to society and especially to other creators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com