Oddbean

Honestly people ignoring this are the ones who never really created original work themselves. Go write a song, or a book, paint something, create a unique program. And then watch somebody else earn money from it while investing none of your lost resources.

I invite everyone and anyone to copy every bit of every program that I've ever written, that is copy-able. if there exists something that I didn't want you to copy and yet you can still do it. It's on me. nostr:nevent1qqsrxvm73356xfyep45jszjdlhv9np5shhqesu5xny4zu2z75tqsrtqpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyr789tjte52pft2rcqh3dy4zl0uax80pne232ahgkwapgtfts9kmuqcyqqqqqqgy43jp2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value You need to understand that value is subjective, and the value you pay for my content/art/program is the perceived value you got from it. Open source, open content, non-priced content enable users to pay whatever they deem is the correct value for that information, it has nothing to do with a piece of content being "my" intellectual property and you not being able to copy it.

But yes, I'm aware of this. Still, you get to decide where the value is for you. If your work which you value is copied and used/shared without you getting any credit, somebody decided for you without you. Highly unethical, wouldn't you agree? Anyway I discussed it twice with my husband (9sirtom5) in the thread, and later the op sent me a video about giving a credit. That's my point. My man stresses out the "theft" thing, because he's deeply bothered by the state intervention with laws. I get that, but that wasn't my focus. As with nostr:nprofile1qqsqdzwltpr635ehdzfd52tz947qlhq77x2c7j7yguwep9n258k2nusprdmhxue69uhhw6r9v96zu6rpwpc8jarpwejhym3wvdhj7qg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t09uq3kamnwvaz7tm5dpjkvmmjv4ehgtnwdaehgu339e3k7mf04qpewr I think we're on the same board, but there's some levels of communication I missed him, my man, probably you too. It's highly improbable I'd miss the point with several anarchists. I'm stressing out the respect for own property and getting credit for hard work if it's required. Not haa haa ctrl c in your face, as I understood from all those notes.

It is unethical, and I vaguely agree about crediting, but I am of the opinion that if it was really "property" you didn't wish to be copied you wouldn't make it copy-able in the first place, or you would distribute it only to people you trust to not copy. If it's property, it should be protect-able. If someone CAN Ctrl + C they will, crying about how it's mine and you can't, is just kindergarten arguments at that point.

Proper credit is VERY important. My pertinent example is the turd formerly known as JSTARK. He is famous for "inventing" the FGC-9. He did not. He very poorly ported an old, out of date design to metric and did such a poor job of it that it became rather notorious for OOBs (out of battery ignitions of ammunition). He did not attribute the original design and outright refused to do so continually. He's a turd for that, even if he didn't deserve to get offed. I HATE that kind of thing. But, the design was open source so he did what he did and now he's infamous.

I think you are missing the point here. Please watch this 1 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 And after that watch this 1 minute video created by the same person: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW-pPUYcroQ

Product development doesn't just fucking happen. It's an invention for people who want to live in a civilized society where investors and innovators aren't just sacrificial animals who get no reward for their effort. You can't compete with someone who gets the benefit of your labor without bearing any of the cost for it. The mental gymnastics to justify stealing is quite incredible.

“In 1987, Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, accusing the company of stealing trade secrets related to the Macintosh GUI. The lawsuit was settled out of court in 1993, with Microsoft agreeing to pay Apple $120 million and to make changes to its Windows interface to reduce its similarity to the Macintosh GUI.”

There is no such thing as intellectual property outside of stuff you keep secret. Once you put it out in public it is no longer property. It’s plagiarism when you claim to be the original creator of the exact thought and you’re not. Plagiarism is an academic/reputation/moral issue, not a criminal issue.

I think we have a practical problem. It’s just a gut feeling, so forgive me if I bungle my argument. If anything I write and post on nostr instantly becomes public it no longer matters who published it, because it can be copied endlessly and I can’t stop it. If we don’t care about authorship, then why bother with identity? If identity doesn’t matter, why do we insist on signing everything? I think this issue is important for creators.

I think we care about authorship/identity because we care about reputation/trustworthiness. The original organizer of good ideas will be who people seek out when they have new questions. People who copy (including AIs) will only be able to answer with summaries of already answered questions.

I keep coming back to reputation as well. It just seems fragile. Maybe it’s supposed to be. I also think it’s better to post into a public void and be aware that you are basically giving the words away, than posting on centralized platforms, where there are miles of legal text of what will and won’t be done with your content which is then changed on a whim anyway. I just think we haven’t quite wrapped our heads around the fact that nostr is in fact a public square.