| |
| ▲ | noduerme a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not the bits that are copyrighted, it's the performance and the creative work. Your savings account is just bits on a disk, yet presumably it represents value that you worked for and which belongs to you to do with what you wish. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 a day ago | parent [-] | | > Your savings account is just bits on a disk, yet presumably it represents value that you worked for and which belongs to you to do with what you wish. That's another example of the shared delusion, since yes, we tell eachother it represents labor and resources, and the market engages in allocation somewhat efficiently, and so the money is a pretty accurate representation of the value of labor and the value of resources. In reality, that's not true, because the most highly compensated jobs are some of the least valuable, such as investment bankers, landlords, or being born rich (which isn't even a job, but is compensated anyway). Rent seeking is one of the most highly compensated things you can do under this system, but also one of the most parasitic and least valuable things. Your savings account's number is totally detached from accurately representing value. It's mostly a representation of where you were born. | | |
| ▲ | felixg3 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | „Shared delusion“ - just another term for „social contract“? | | |
| ▲ | komali2 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sort of? The contract doesn't mention that "value" and "price" are just as often negatively correlated as positively so, though, and claims the opposite (always positive correlation), hence where the shared delusion comes in. |
| |
| ▲ | gosub100 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Your savings account's number is totally detached from accurately representing value. It's mostly a representation of where you were born This could also be true because the number of dollars in circulation is "just bits on a disk" that politicians can manipulate for various reasons. Someone can work very hard and save their earnings, only to have the value diluted in the future. Isn't that also a delusion? | | |
| ▲ | komali2 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Someone can work very hard and save their earnings, only to have the value diluted in the future. Isn't that also a delusion? Yes, it is. It's one of my pet peeves about the cryptocurrency movement vs neoliberal institutional types. "Bitcoin is juts bits on a disk!" is always answered with "well, dollars is too!" To which the institutionalist can only say, "no, that's different." But really, it isn't. What the cryptocurrency people get wrong is that replacing one shared delusion with another isn't a useful path to go down. | | |
| ▲ | dagss 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unless you do substinence farming, you would not last a month without "shared delusions" in place to make sure farmers supply you with food, getting nothing in return except a promise that they can go somewhere to pick up something someone else than you made in the future. Money isn't "only bits" it is also an encoding of social contracts You use the word delusion like it also includes a) things everyone fully agree only exists in people's mind as intersubjective reality (no deceit going on really) and b) things you depend on for your survival. You talk like getting rid of "delusions", as you call them, is a goal in itself. Why? It is part of human technology. (Just like math, which also only exist in people's minds.) Humans have had contracts since we were hunter gatherers in groups... I would recommend Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" for you, you would probably like it. It talks about the history of "shared delusions" as you call them, as a critical piece for development of society. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > would recommend Yuval Harari's "Sapiens" for you, you would probably like it. It talks about the history of "shared delusions" as you call them, as a critical piece for development of society. Already read it. Counter: read "Debt, the first 5000 years" by Graeber for, finally, a non- "Chicago school of economics" take on the history of trade amongst humans. | | |
| ▲ | dagss 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the tip. Just to be clear, I agree the money abstraction is not working particularly well. And that in the age of computers something that is more directly linked to the underlying economy could have worked better. But what needs to replace it is a better and improved "delusion", not a lack of it. | | |
| ▲ | komali2 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But, why? Regarding your farmer example, there are examples throughout history of farming that fed many without the involvement of currency or the paying off of debt. Take a look into syndicalized Spain if you ever get a chance (~1936-1939). Farms were collectivized and worked on by volunteers, distributions done by need with some bookkeeping to track how many people were in certain regions. Worked pretty well until the communists decided it needed to be centrally controlled and kicked out the anarchists! Everyone always starts every future speculation assuming capitalism, or at least, currency. Isn't it worth challenging these core baseline assumptions? At the very least, the other ground is well covered, so we might come up with a little more interesting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lurk2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > that to evade such insanity is wrong in some way. There’s a commons problem at play here. Most habitual pirates couldn’t pay for what they are pirating even if they wanted to, so restricting their access just makes the world worse-off; but who is going to finance the creation of new content if everything is just reliant on completely optional donations? The 100 year period is absurd and does nothing to incentivize art, but there are costs involved in production of these works. People are always going to make music and write books regardless of the economic outcome; far fewer are going to write technical manuals or act as qualified reporters without being compensated. | | |
| ▲ | thisisabore 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There are several labs and researchers with ideas on how to do this and published books on the subject (https://www.sharing-thebook.com/). Long story short: workable solutions exist, it is entirely a question of political will and lack thereof. | | |
| ▲ | aqeelat 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | This would work on niche segments and not for the masses. Look up YouTube subscribers to Pateon ratio. |
| |
| ▲ | 0x3f 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Most habitual pirates couldn’t pay for what they are pirating Seems questionable. You can cover almost everything with a handful of monthly subscriptions these days. In fact I often pirate things that I otherwise have access to via e.g. Amazon Prime. > but who is going to finance the creation of new content if everything is just reliant on completely optional donations? Well this is an appeal to consequences, right? It's probably true that increased protectable output is a positive of IP law, but that doesn't mean it's an optimal overall state, given the (massive) negatives. It's a local maxima, or so I would argue. Plus it's a bit of a strange argument. It seems to claim that we must protect Disney from e.g. 'knock offs', and somehow if we didn't, nobody would be motivated to create things. But then who would be making the knock-offs and what would be motivating them? | | |
| ▲ | klez 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > You can cover almost everything with a handful of monthly subscriptions these days. Maybe for you that's something you can afford. I can't. I just consume less music. Or sail the high seas if I really want something. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | If we're purely talking about music then almost everything is on YouTube, which has a subscription cost of $0/mo. |
| |
| ▲ | lurk2 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You can cover almost everything with a handful of monthly subscriptions these days. The majority of people on earth cannot afford more than two or three of these subscriptions. > But then who would be making the knock-offs and what would be motivating them? Ten years ago there was a popular blog that got posted on /r/anarcho_capitalism with some frequency. IP was a contentious topic among the then-technologically literate userbase. At some point, a spammer began copying articles from the blog and posting them to /r/anarcho_capitalism himself. This caught the attention of some users and the spammer was eventually banned. A few days later, I followed a link back to his site and found all the articles he had stolen now linked back to a page featuring the cease and desist letter he had received from the original blog, the URL being something like: “f*-statists-and-such-and-such.” Without any* copyright law, any content that is generated effectively gets arbitraged out to the most efficient hosts and promoters. This might be a win for readers in the short term, but long-term tends towards commodification that simply won’t sustain specialized subject matter in the absence of a patronage model. YouTube and the wave of Short Form Video Content are the two most obvious case studies, though it happens on every social platform that moves faster than infringement notices can be sent. | | |
| ▲ | 0x3f 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The majority of people on earth cannot afford more than two or three of these subscriptions. I would guess the majority of people on earth don't even have good enough internet to pirate HD video, nor the technical skills to do it, so we're not really talking about global averages here. > Without any* copyright law, any content that is generated effectively gets arbitraged out to the most efficient hosts and promoters. This might be a win for readers in the short term, but long-term tends towards commodification that simply won’t sustain specialized subject matter in the absence of a patronage model. I don't think you understand my argument. I don't deny that this may be true. I deny that it is ipso facto the best outcome to have high-quality creator content, or whatever we are talking about here, at the cost of the massive benefits of free use. You might as well tell me New Jersey gas pumping laws lead to nicer service experiences, and getting rid of them would ruin that. We can arbitrarily prop up any industry to make it cushy and a 'nice experience'. That doesn't make doing so the greatest overall good. I would argue that even if all that we achieved with the abolition of IP law was the provision of cheap generic drugs, long out of research, it'd be worth far more than the YouTube creator economy. | | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ an hour ago | parent [-] | | Anyone is free to release under free use in our current system. You already can live with the benefits of no IP law by just limiting yourself to those people that chose to to release this way. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dagss 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sure. But in addition to copyright you might add the concept of money, or the concept of any property rights and ownership of physical things, and... Calling such things "shared delusions" is missing the point...it's not that it's wrong, but it is not a very useful way to look at it. There is such a thing as intersubjective (as opposed to objective) reality. Physically it exists as a shared pattern in the brains of humans, but that is seldom useful to reflect on. Language wise much more convenient and useful to talk about copyright as something, you know, existing. Everyone knows these are just human agreements... it is not exactly deep thinking to point it out. You may not agree to some laws. You can then seek to have the laws overturned (I agree patents and copyright are... counterproductive, at this point). Luckily many parts of the world have democracy to decide what laws to force on people, as opposed to a dictator. | |
| ▲ | verisimi 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree completely. Parasites with money like to keep open the legal loopholes for their clever wheeze. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
