Hacker News Reader

Comment by dofm | Hacker News Reader

I am not making a claim that the work has inherent value, am I?

Nor is the artist in this scenario!

They are merely saying that they have made a limited series of objects they wish to assign a price to, if the market will pay.

But if the people who can buy it can sell essentially identical reproductions for whatever price they choose, then its assigned product price tends to zero too.

If you follow your own argument, then what you are saying is that compensation for effort can only come from a one-time contract. But since intellectual work is not then protected by copyright, those contracts are really difficult to write, because the buyer is not getting any unique thing either.

It doesn't take much to get from "there's no such thing as copyright" to demand collapse for almost every industrial product. Would we even have the PC if there was no copyright protection for intellectual work?

View on HN

You're mixing up copyrights and patents.

Also, would we have something more advanced than PCs by now if we weren't hindered by unnatural "ownership" of thoughts?

> You're mixing up copyrights and patents.

I'm not, at all. aeon_ai's original point was "Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws."

So what I did was mount a straightforward, easy defence of the simplest form of intellectual property, and observe that his concerns about disease cure ownership could be addressed by targeted changes, and not by a world where "intellectual property" is written off as myth.

> Also, would we have something more advanced than PCs by now if we weren't hindered by unnatural "ownership" of thoughts?

No? Why on earth would you think this? Intellectual property protection is the way that you get people to invest in the development of ideas. Almost no groundbreaking ideas in the industrial revolution or later would have happened if their subsequent monetisation was not protected.

It also explicitly doesn't grant "ownership" of thoughts or ideas.

One can make all sorts of arguments that software patents are bad (mostly I think they are), that copyright durations are too long or grant undue protection (I think it's possible that the total protection window is now too long) and that copyright extension law was bogus (most of it was).

But the legal construct of intellectual property is why we have the progress we have already. Will it need changing going forward? If it survives at all, yes.

But if intellectual property does not survive then the alternative is corporate thuggishness of an unimaginable kind.

Your “simple defense” is one that misunderstands the economic value of creative work.

I know an artist who has done well for themselves. They have done so because they have revealed that they know what it is they sell. “I sell paper”

The artist is the source of value. An AI can produce visual media, but it can not be an artist. The artist is not one work, but the source of many arts.

My thrust is therefore not that protection of creative work should be abolished, but that the notion of “theft” of ideas and styles is one that is not protected by copyright today, and only serves entrenched corporate interests.

We are either entering a world of hyperliquid culture or tyranny.

You picked the Personal Computer, the product of hacker culture, open architectures (the IBM/Phoenix/Compaq story alone makes your example hilarious), clones, open source, and a software scene so filled with piracy that Bill Gates himself wrote the “Open Letter to Hobbyists”, as your example for why copyright was indispensable? LMFAO

PS: look up the cover of the reissued Lions’ “Commentary on UNIX”

> PS: look up the cover of the reissued Lions’ “Commentary on UNIX”

Hey, weirdly enough, I don't need to, because I have a copy of it that I bought the week it was reissued, during his lifetime, from which AFAIK he made money, as the author?

I know that story and I don't think you really understand, actually, that the Lions book folklore is not actually a story of abusing or invalidating Lions' copyright.

But Bill Gates didn't make the PC. IBM did. And it was not aimed at hacker culture: it was aimed at business, at writers, at publishers, at a knowledge industry that exists only as a result of copyright.

You think the IBM/Phoenix/Compaq story exists outside copyright? All of that is grounded in copyright. Again, PC clones exist because of clean-room techniques, within copyright. Not in ignorance or contravention of it.

Open source licences are all grounded in copyright.

This is just weird gish-galloping of unrelated concepts now.

A gish gallop is attacking the opposing side with a flurry of different arguments, I merely supplied a long list of rebuttals to your assertion we would not have the PC without copyright. I included the IBM mention because I assumed you meant “Personal Computer” not “IBM PC”, as the latter, while vastly important in its own right, is still eclipsed by the PC as a concept. The world would be different without the IBM PC, while the world would be much MUCH poorer without computers in every home and/or pocket. The IBM lineage might be resilient, but we could just as easily have had a (non-Apple) NeXT, Magic Cap, PSION, Be, Amiga, etc descendant as predominant computing platforms instead. And my point with the Lions book, is that it’s emblematic of the control AT&T exerted on Unix, instead of letting it be free, where they (and descendants USL and SCO) attempted but failed to squash an open information revolution (*BSD and Linux) that had been seeded by Unix to begin with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com