Comment by Amadou | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Amadou | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Legal fiction" is the only thing that gives anyone any control over anything, tangible or otherwise.

No, tangible items are inherently controllable because they are rivalrous and excludable. The law just structures how we deal with those characteristics. For information, copyright attempts to make it rivalrous and excludable, to stuff it into the same box as tangible items when it shares none of the same properties.

1. First of all, [citation needed]. Humans have been exploiting information asymmetry since the dawn of time.

Sure they have, but just because it happens sometimes does not contradict the self-evident fact that people love to share. Next time you send someone a lolcat, remember that.

2. It is also "human nature" to want to want to have sex with people one finds attractive. Are rape laws also never going to "work out"?

Rape, murder, theft, these are all behaviours that are (1) not the common case and (2) inflict harm because the objects of the crimes are essentially rivalrous.

3. Entertainment counts as "knowledge" now? That's even more of a stretch than calling it "culture"!

Arguments about quality of the information are completely orthogonal to the topic. Copyright law does not attempt to discriminate on the quality of the material copyrighted so quality isn't a factor in discussing the merits of copyright law either.

> No, tangible items are inherently controllable because they are rivalrous and excludable.

You missed my point. Tangible things are only as inherently controllable as the capacity of the owner to control them. Without "legal fictions", what's to keep someone more capable than you to simply take it from you? After all that's your argument against copyright: people can just take it, so owners have no control. What stops a bully from taking your school lunch?

> Sure they have, but just because it happens sometimes does not contradict the self-evident fact that people love to share.

"Sometimes"?! It happens all the time! It's been happening since the existence of competition over limited resources, even before humans consciously realized knowledge is power! Think of all the "priests" throughout various cultures in history. Think of why encryption exists. Think of why the CIA and NSA exist. Saying something is self-evident doesn't make it so.

>Next time you send someone a lolcat, remember that.

Heh, I don't send lolcats. Guess I'm not human, then :-P

> Rape, murder, theft, these are all behaviours that are (1) not the common case and (2) inflict harm because the objects of the crimes are essentially rivalrous

Wait, by (1) you mean if rape, murder, theft ever become the common case, it will be OK? You know, like when it happens during wars? And (2) what's so rivalrous about sex? You can have sex with multiple people simultaneously, and once somebody has had sex does not mean they cannot have it again. And heck, we have the technology to make it so people don't even remember having sex, so there's no harm done!

But you know what is rivalrous? The food, shelter and clothing creators need to live to create new works.

> Arguments about quality of the information are completely orthogonal to the topic

The characteristics of the information do matter matter in determining what protections are afforded it. Would you share here all your private information, financial accounts, photos, and so on? That's just knowledge after all, and it's human nature to share. Or say you get "doxxed" and it's all out on the Internet, you'd be OK with people sharing it? No? Oh, it's your private information, and suddenly you feel it should not be shared? Thank god for privacy laws but down with copyright laws! Funny how that works.

Without "legal fictions", what's to keep someone more capable than you to simply take it from you?

Laws don't keep people from taking tangible items, they only punish afterwards. The only thing that stops someone from taking something tangible from you is your ability to stop them. Nothing stops someone from making a copy of information they already have.

Think of all the "priests" throughout various cultures in history. Think of why encryption exists. Think of why the CIA and NSA exist.

Secret versus public knowledge. They are two entirely different things. This discussion is about intentionally published knowledge.

Wait, by (1) you mean if rape, murder, theft ever become the common case, it will be OK? You know, like when it happens during wars?

Even during war none of those is the common case. That's why we prosecute people for those crimes in times of war too. If those things actually become the common case, we can cross that bridge when we come it.

But you know what is rivalrous? The food, shelter and clothing creators need to live to create new works.

Yes sir, Mr Valenti!

Would you share here all your private information

Again, secret versus public.

> Laws don't keep people from taking tangible items, they only punish afterwards.

So now all laws are "legal fiction"?

> The only thing that stops someone from taking something tangible from you is your ability to stop them. Nothing stops someone from making a copy of information they already have.

And my point is, your ability to stop them, absent the so-called "legal fictions", is about as weak as a creator having their work ripped off. If you doubt this, ask yourself how many people in the world are more than capable of taking stuff away from you.

> This discussion is about intentionally published knowledge.

Actually, it's about control of information. You don't want your private data published because you fear it may harm you. Creators want to publish their works because they hope to profit from it. If you expect your "rights" to be respected even though little stops people (coughNSAcough) from taking it, why should creators not expect respect for theirs?

Essentially, most works are intentionally published with the expectation that something will be given back in exchange. Otherwise you might as well say people are "intentionally publishing" loaves of bread in supermarkets and you could just take them. (And since about 40% of supermarket perishables are wasted on the shelves anyway, hey, they're only about 60% rivalrous anyway!)

> Even during war none of those is the common case. That's why we prosecute people for those crimes in times of war too.

War is an atrocity precisely because this does become the common case. And that we (make feeble attempts to) prosecute for war crimes means that even then it's not OK.

> Yes sir, Mr Valenti!

I guess that means you think non-consensual sex is perfectly fine!

> Again, secret versus public.

What does that have to do with the "human nature to share"?

I guess that means you think non-consensual sex is perfectly fine!

If there is one thing anyone else reading along should take away from this discussion, it is that you wrote the above. It perfectly sums up the intellectual rigor of the arguments you've made here. And yes, that statement means I am done wrasslin' with a pig.

Apologies for pointing out the flaws in your "taking non-rivalrous things causes no harm" argument. Oink!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com