[wpietri]

> That's just how the internet works. Don't put something on the internet if you don't want it to be globally distributed and copied.

You could make the same argument about paper. "That's just how photocopiers work! If you don't want your creations to be endlessly duplicated and sold, don't write them down!" Heck, you could make the same argument about leaving the house. "That's just how guns work! Don't go out in public if you don't want to take the risk of getting shot!"

But it's a bad argument every time. That something is technically possible doesn't make it morally right. It's true that a big point of technology is to increase an individual's power. But I'd say that increased power doesn't diminish our responsibility for our actions. It increases it.

[autoexec]

> You could make the same argument about paper. "That's just how photocopiers work! If you don't want your creations to be endlessly duplicated and sold, don't write them down!"

No, the argument would be about photocopies, not paper. "That's just how photocopiers work! Don't put something into a photocopier if you don't want photocopies of it." It isn't possible for anyone to access anything on the internet without making copies of that thing. Copies are literally how the internet works.

Shooting everyone who steps outside isn't how guns work either so that also fails as an analogy.

The internet was specifically designed for the global distribution of copies. If that isn't what you want, don't publish your works there.

> That something is technically possible doesn't make it morally right.

Morality is entirely different from how the internet works, but in practice, I don't see anything immoral about making a copy of something. Morality only becomes an issue when it comes to what someone does with that copy.

[ulbu]

> If that isn't what you want, don't publish your works there.

"Women are oppressed in Iran. Well, that's just how Iran is. Just leave it if you don't want to be oppressed"

Oh my. Yea, and whatever is some way, is that way – "it is how it is, deal with it". It's an empty statement. The topic is an ethical and political discussion in light of current technologies. It's a question of whether it should work this way. That's how all moral questions come about – by asking if something should be the way it is. And the current state of technology brings a dilemma that hasn't existed before.

And no, the internet was not designed for that. Quite obviously. Sounds like you haven't heard of private messages.

I'm very surprised this has to be stated.

[autoexec]

> "Women are oppressed in Iran. Well, that's just how Iran is. Just leave it if you don't want to be oppressed" Yea, and whatever is some way, is that way – "it is how it is, deal with it". It's an empty statement.

No, because Iran can stop oppressing women and still exist as a functional country. oppressing women today is "how it is". The internet on the other hand is designed to be a system for the distribution of copies. That isn't "how it is", but rather "what it is".

The internet cannot do anything except distribute copies and anything that doesn't distribute copies wouldn't be the internet.

> Sounds like you haven't heard of private messages.

Private messages are also not what is being discussed here. The comment being discussed said: "I don't agree because it creates this dilemma for creators: you need to put your work out there to get traction, but if you put your work out there and anything public is fair game, then it will be sampled by a computer and instantly recreated at scale."

"anything public". For what it's worth though, private messages are still copies.

[ulbu]

all received messages are copies of the original. a broadcast is a copy. language itself is an incessant copying. so it’s a truism to say that of the internet. and a generality that doesn’t apply to specifics. downloading cracked software is also copying, but this genus is irrelevant to its discussion. its morality is beside its being a copy, even though it is essential that it be a copy. likewise with other data.

we don’t have rules set yet, that’s why this discussion is active, ie, not just a niggle from after a couple of beers. it’s a question of respect for the author.

[sabbaticaldev]

yea so everybody can copy a book just like the internet and nobody is persecuted for memorizing it.

[wpietri]

Yes, if one over-narrowly construes any analogy, it can be quickly dismissed. I suppose that's my fault for putting an analogy on the internet.

We've had copying technologies since people invented the pen. It was such an important activity that there were people who spent their whole lives copying texts.

With the rise of the printing press, copying became a significant societal concern, one so big that America's founders put copyright into the constitution. [1] The internet did add some new wrinkles, but if anything the surprise is is that most of the legal and moral thinking that predates it translated just fine to the internet age. That internet transmission happens to make temporary copies of things changed very little, and certainly not the broad principles.

I understand why Facebook and other people lining their pockets would like to claim that they are entitled to take what they want. But we don't have to believe them.

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/...

[autoexec]

I don't think that facebook should be allowed to violate copyright law, but clearly they have the same rights as you do to copy works made publicly avilable on the internet.

[wpietri]

We are talking about more than the current law here. We're talking about what the law should be, based on what people see as right. And I'd add that Facebook is doing a lot more here than just quietly having a copy of something.

[autoexec]

If the concern isn't copyright infringement what would the new law be about? What's the harm people want solved? Is it just some philosophical objection, like people not liking the idea of other people doing something they don't like? Is it fear of future potential harms that haven't been seen in real life yet?

Is it just "someone else may be using what I published publicly to make money somehow in a way that is legal and doesn't infringe on my copyrights but I still don't like it because they aren't giving me a cut?" What would the new law look like?

[wpietri]

I think you haven't really grappled with how laws get made.

Copyright is a thing we made up because of "people not liking the idea of other people doing something they don't like". The current specific boundaries are a careful compromise about exactly when we protect "using what I published publicly to make money somehow".

Those boundaries in large part exist because of responses to specific technologies. Before the technologies, people didn't care. After, people got upset and then we changed the laws, or the court rulings that provide detailed meaning to the laws shifted.

As an example, you could look at moral rights, which are another intellectual property right the laws for which came much later than copyright. Or you could look at how intellectual property law around music has shifted in response to recording, and again in response to sampling. Or you could look at copyright for text, which was invented in response to the printing press. And more specifically in response to some people using pioneering technology to profit from other people's creative work.

And we might not need any changes in the law here. The people at OpenAI and elsewhere know they're doing something that could well be illegal. They've been repeatedly sued, and they've chosen to make deals with some data-holders. They wouldn't be paying for published data at all if they knew they were in the clear, but they've chosen to cut many deals with publishers powerful enough to sue. They're hoovering up data anyhow because, like too many startups, they've decided they'll do what they want and see if they can get away with it.

[orthecreedence]

> You could make the same argument about paper.

Most paper doesn't come with Terms and Conditions that everything you write on it belongs to the paper company. I hate Facebook (with a fiery passion) but people gave them their data in exchange for the groundbreaking and unprecedented ability to make friends with another person (which has never been done before). It sucks, but don't use these "free" systems without understanding the sinister dynamics and incentives behind them.

People make the same arguments about the NSA. "They aren't doing anything bad with the data their collecting about every US citizen." Well, at some point they will. Stop borrowing against future freedom for a tiny bit of convenience today.

[wpietri]

I think you're confusing a legal point (whether a T&C really gives Facebook any particular legal right in court) with the moral question of whether or not people should just roll over for large companies because of language we all, Facebook included, know that nobody ever reads.

Even if FB's T&C made it clear they could do this (something I haven't seen proven), that at best means people would have a hard time suing as individuals. They can still get upset. They can still protest to the regulators and legislators whose job it is to keep these companies in line, and who create the legal context that gives a T&C document practical meaning.