Bonus points if I can let the tool ingest season 1 or an OVA of said material where a season 2 is never going to come (looking at you "No Game, No Life")
At long last, _Firefly_ Season 2 is within our grasp!
Imagine someone doing this to show us "their" ending of berserk, for example. Just utterly disrespectful to Miura's legacy. The man dedicated his life to his art and you reinterpreted it like an ass hole because you lack patience and demand more content at the expense of all artistic agency. Complete trash.
Just a number really. That's all intellectual work is: a number. All numbers already exist, humans just discover them.
I just can't take it seriously, this notion that intellectual work is somehow "special" and deserving of "protections". To me it's as delusional as trying to own numbers.
> input of the author
Why do you need somebody's permission to do math with numbers? Makes no sense whatsoever.
> Imagine someone doing this to show us "their" ending of berserk
No need to imagine it when fanfiction.net exists. AI will make it even easier.
It's a fact that everything can be represented in binary. You can identify every knowable concept as either "cat" or "not cat". That's a fact.
Now... who cares? What does that being a fact mean? It means nothing. It's not useful. It doesn't prove a point any more than what you're saying does. All information is a number, that's a fact. Okay. Now... so WHAT?
The charge here is that some public information deserves protection. You disagree with that but, again, who cares? Prove why your opinion on that is relevant to any other human being, or engage with your irrelevance all by yourself. On the "protect public info" side, we can say that things like your social security number needs to be necessarily public, but we need to be able to stop people from using it however they want. There are indexing reasons for that. There are medical reasons for that. There are (yes, far too many) financial reasons for that.
And if you don't like that example, let's try one more directly applicable with a creative example: trade marks are public info. But if we let every person do whatever they wanted with a trade mark, they lose the real, tangible value that they provide (iconography is foundational to how human brains efficiently interpret information).
So pick you poison, but then engage with the actual poison; don't just wink behind smug tautologies. Tell us how, in your view, we can have a framework that provides the values that we get from IP, when we don't protect IP, as a concept. Because, buddy, I've been longing for, and working towards, that kind of framework since I figured out how pathetically inept IP is at actually doing what it does.
I care. So should you, and so should everyone here on Hacker News.
> What does that being a fact mean? It means nothing.
It means everything. It means what they really want is to more or less control what arguments you can pass to memcpy. The only way they can possibly do that is to destroy computing as you and I know it.
Think about it, about what they're really doing. All information is bits and copying bits is a fundamental computer operation. In order to restrict that, computers need to be made so that they will run all the programs, except the ones that invalidate intellectual property. Most likely they'll be made so they can run only the programs they approve. Government signed binaries, programming licenses.
Surely everyone here agrees that such a future is dystopian.
Which you might note is not an "answer" so much as it is succumbing to the chaos that you don't feel is important enough to control.
I do appreciate you making that explicit though! It's often hard to get people to admit to such naked dismissal of functional societal mechanisms that actual people get practical, tangible value from. Definitely contextualizes the framing more vividly.
Nothing wrong with that. Intellectual property proponents will "burn down" the entire technology field to get their way. Every day it's some new DRM bullshit. They couldn't care less about hacking and values like computing freedom. Then you have governments who want to do things like stop citizens from using strong cryptography.
The fact people currently get value from it doesn't justify its continued existence.
> succumbing to the chaos that you don't feel is important enough to control.
Controlling it requires destroying everything I care about. I'd sacrifice the entire copyright industry to keep it.
> I do appreciate you making that explicit though!
It's what I strived to do from the beginning. I want to see things clearly, as they are. If the conclusion is the current status quo is a lie and should be abolished, so be it.
If you find instances where I'm contradicting my beliefs, I give you free license to call me out on it in public. I will either try to justify myself or try to change immediately if I can't.
What I hope for you is that when you are reliant on something, it is stripped from you without regard for how you need it, and hopefully using a particular kind of logic that you find repugnant. That would be an appropriate reversal of the ideology you are preaching. I hope that you lose something you NEED and that the people that could help you simply won't. Not out of inability but out of ideology. I hope that it happens to you not because it would be distressing to you, but because I am confident that such experiences can make one understand how ideological purity (in any specific aspect, logic included) is not a particularly useful measure of the validity or utility of an ideology as it pertains to applicable function. And if it doesn't, then your argument is only enriched by having experienced it. It's a win-win, if you're interested in the type of rigidly structured nonsense you're expressing.
I'll take your silence as a realization of said pinnacle, and any future responses as indicative of your need for further education. And, in those cases, please understand that I am continually hoping for your success in that. Bonne soirée!
Man, this kind of tit for tat arguing is really not what HN is made for and it is very uninteresting to read, especially with thinly veiled insults like this one.
I’d love to know if you’ve actually ever created something novel that was good. Not code. Not math. Something uniquely original with no foundational basis.
If you want to see the stuff I've created, the links to my website and GitHub is in my profile. It's all free and open source software. I'm not a fan of advertising either so I try very hard not to post my stuff here unless it's directly relevant to the discussion. I don't know about "good", that's for others to judge.
The idea being that if we prevent people from doing specific math on specific numbers, the more proficient number-discoverers will have greater incentive to discover more of those pleasing numbers, and we all benefit.
... Which to me sounds wishful, given the reality of the system as implemented today.
Perhaps someone can help me understand the appeals to creative sanctity. Does making my own fan fiction cheapen the original work? Why is it immoral to change a fiction to suit my own preferences, as long as original authorship is not implied? I mod my single player video games all the time to enjoy them more. I have no qualms about patching out a tech tree if the grinding isn't too my taste, is this an affront? How about covering my favorite song? Making a custom cover for a special book in my collection? Skipping the scariest part of a horror movie? Singing a new jazz song imitating Armstrong's style? Help me understand.
That's a pretty big if. Think about what must happen for such violations to be prevented. You need computers that only execute legal software. It's literally the end of computing as we know it, the end of everything the word "hacker" ever stood for.
Creators are good but I certainly don't support protecting them at all costs. Certainly not at the cost of computing freedom. I love computers and I hate to see them limited to enable obsolete business models.
Imagine debugging your own code (your code being your intellectual work) and this guy barges into your room and says "Why are you wasting your time? Why didn't you just pick a better 'number'?"
There's a reason you can't copyright songs constructed through combinatorial algorithms. Human authorship plays a role in creative pursuit, by law.
No one said that.
> so why commit yourself to any form of craft
Because you enjoy it.
Intellectual property is all about controlling public information. They deliberately publish it out there and then expect to control its flow and what it's used for. Makes no sense.
Why do humans have any right at all? I can't take this seriously. Molecules don't have rights.
It's part of a very sensible legal framework to incentivize the creation and publication of hard-to-find numbers that you value very much.
I hate intellectual property as much as the next guy, but it's not nonsense.
> Just a number really. That's all intellectual work is: a number.
You saw that everything could be encoded in a number, and instead of expanding your view of what a number could be, it diminished your view of everything else. That's depressing.
I disagree about "sensible".
It's the 21st century, the age of ubiquitous globally networked computers. The copying, moving and transmission of numbers is literally a fundamental operation of these machines.
The tyranny required to maintain this "sensible" numeric ownership system grows every year. The world changing potential of computers is squandered because of this "sensible" system. Look at how much technology has been held back by the copyright industry. Are LLMs going to be yet another victim? I'm sick of it. Society needs to find another way to incentivize creation.
> That's depressing.
Absolutely. This state of affairs depresses me very much. To maintain this "sensible" system, the computer freedom we enjoy today must be destroyed. It's the antithesis of everything the word "hacker" means.
Intellectual property is an idea from last century or older. It doesn't have a place in this new century.
Those "sensible" systems will have to change. Instead of incentivising people to find high value numbers by this artificial scarcity, number searchers will have to find other ways to get paid. That's all.
People that pick up the trash in public parks don't get paid over and over for the beautiful work they did. They have to do it again and again as most of us, once the product of our time is out.
I think it's extremely disrespectful to make a TV show out of a work of fiction without the permission of the author. That author would be well within their rights to sue you.
Delusion is thinking you can own numbers.
What does it matter what these silly laws say? They're borderline unenforceable anyway. Imaginary ownership rules are constantly violated world wide at massive scales. Ever saved a photo from a website? Ever shared a picture with someone else? You violated these rules.
And what are they going to do about it? Are they gonna sue everyone? Throw everybody in jail for "disrespecting" their imaginary numeric ownership. What a bunch of bullshit.
It's the 21st century. Better to just accept it and let go.
You mean highest form of flattery? Literally participating and reflecting, trying to recreate and reinterpret is how humans integrate, show acceptance, make it part of themselves and culture. His art is not sacred, nor is it absolutely original, nor is it made in isolation from the world. Miura's legacy is sharing his reinterpretation of whatever. For it to exist there must be less elitist underground bunkers full of sacred IP which we unable to think about, discuss and share our interpretations of.
But, of course, when techies do the same thing that creatives have done for decades (IE, make transformative fan art), well now thats not fair apparently.
> you reinterpreted it
Reinterpretations, fan art, and "what if" scenarios are completely common in creative industries. People build whole careers on transforming others work.