Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 199 posts

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#21

Post by derekp7 »

itistoday2 wrote: post #11
itistoday2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't change anything in practice. Sure you are. People do it all the time.

lol @ HN downvoters who can't handle reality. That's OK, I understand and respect that you've chosen to subject yourself to rules you don't like. Just less whining and complaining, OK?

Could you clarify what your thought is? Are you basically suggesting civil disobedience as a form of protest? That has had some effect in the past, however it took a large coordinated effort, plus it took enough people from outside the movements to recognize the non-moral nature of the laws that were being protested, and finally it also caused a lot of sacrifice for those conducting the civil disobedience.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#22

Post by dangrossman »

mindslight wrote: post #6
dangrossman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part of the DMCA that lets sites and ISPs host/transmit user uploads without being sued on a daily basis is pretty nice.

I don't recall ISPs being sued [and found liable] before the DMCA. That seems akin to the phone company being sued for someone singing happy birthday over their lines. IMHO being thankful for "safe harbor" seems more like a post-rationalization than anything else. If poor definitions meant common carriers weren't actually exempt, then that could have been resolved with straightforward clarification instead of an unne…

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena (1993) and Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA (1994). Both were held liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by users.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#23

Post by Riseed »

itistoday2 wrote: post #13
Riseed wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree to an extent. Paying fines and/or avoiding jail (within the system) are not free as in beer . Likewise, leaving the country and relocating is also not free (e.g. there's a few to renounce US citizenship). Whether we're free as in speech to withdraw consent from the social contract (by which I do not mean to speak to its validity or lack thereof) is more of a grey area. As with freedom of speech, the freedom t…

> Paying fines and/or avoiding jail (within the system) are not free as in beer. Well, in terms of copyright law it really depends. People violate copyright law all the time (see torrents) and vast majority don't pay anything for doing so. Sometimes people do have to face consequences, but one of the reasons that is so is because of the folks who disagree with and vehemently complain about ridiculous laws that do not…

Yes, torrents (and photocopiers, etc) are nearly free, except for the unlucky few who may be caught for purpose of example. And yes, this is in part due to uninformed, unmotivated, and/or repressed dissenters, regardless of where the first or largest blame may rest.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there's yet a torrent for tractor software, and my impression from other articles is that John Deere et al are more suit-happy at the moment than are the music, film, and publishing companies.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#24

Post by itistoday2 »

derekp7 wrote: post #21
itistoday2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol @ HN downvoters who can't handle reality. That's OK, I understand and respect that you've chosen to subject yourself to rules you don't like. Just less whining and complaining, OK?

Could you clarify what your thought is? Are you basically suggesting civil disobedience as a form of protest? That has had some effect in the past, however it took a large coordinated effort, plus it took enough people from outside the movements to recognize the non-moral nature of the laws that were being protested, and finally it also caused a lot of sacrifice for those conducting the civil disobedience.

I am saying that if a large group of people feel they are being abused by a system that does not represent them, they are always free to reject that system and adopt another one that does work for them.

If you walk into a casino and notice that the rules appear to be rigged against you, do you try to work within the casino's system, perhaps petitioning the staff to change the rules to be more in your favor?

You have other options: (1) Leave the casino, (2) attempt to cheat the casino, (3) fight the casino using either violent or (preferably) non-violent means, (4) create a new establishment that you and your group are happy with.

Your other choice is to continue to play the slots and vent online when you keep losing, and although that might make you feel better it won't change the reality of the game.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#25

Post by MereInterest »

dangrossman wrote: post #3
mindslight wrote: post #2

If copyright law actually respected a balance between creators and the public, anything under digital restriction technology would be ineligible for it, since there's clearly no intention of adding to the public domain after the period is up. Of course we know it doesn't. Anyone with half a brain knew the DMCA was a bad idea when it was being "debated". Now it's accepted because we've grown accustomed to workarounds.…

The part of the DMCA that lets sites and ISPs host/transmit user uploads without being sued on a daily basis is pretty nice.

Except that it does not require you to own the copyright in order to send a take-down notice. It does not even require you to have a reasonable belief that you own the copyright. All it requires is a "good faith belief".

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#26

Post by fanquake »

ec109685 wrote: post #19

Feels like the best approach is to encourage farmers to boycot at least one of the major tractor providers until these restrictions are removed. No new laws or lawsuits needed -- just some collective action.

Which provider do you propose we boycott, and which one do we use in the mean time? JohnDeere, CASE, New Holland etc dominate the industry, and no farmer is going to (let alone can afford to) stop using their current equipment, and spend millions of dollars (it would easily cost us this much) buying different brand machinery. Let alone dealing with the hassles that come with swapping from one stream of ag software to another.

What's most likely to happen is farmers will just keep modifying their machinery at will. It's already common place to chip your engine, or to physically modify machines/implements to improve performance or your production methods. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#27

Post by viraptor »

itistoday2 wrote: post #24
derekp7 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you clarify what your thought is? Are you basically suggesting civil disobedience as a form of protest? That has had some effect in the past, however it took a large coordinated effort, plus it took enough people from outside the movements to recognize the non-moral nature of the laws that were being protested, and finally it also caused a lot of sacrifice for those conducting the civil disobedience.

I am saying that if a large group of people feel they are being abused by a system that does not represent them, they are always free to reject that system and adopt another one that does work for them. If you walk into a casino and notice that the rules appear to be rigged against you, do you try to work within the casino's system, perhaps petitioning the staff to change the rules to be more in your favor? You have…

I'd like this to succeed (really), but as far as we know, right now, you're choosing option 5 (venting online) while trying to convince us that 1, 2, 3, 4 are better. Show us what you've done.

And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects.

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#28

Post by ergothus »

mindslight wrote: post #2

If copyright law actually respected a balance between creators and the public, anything under digital restriction technology would be ineligible for it, since there's clearly no intention of adding to the public domain after the period is up. Of course we know it doesn't. Anyone with half a brain knew the DMCA was a bad idea when it was being "debated". Now it's accepted because we've grown accustomed to workarounds.…

1) The DMCA had a _lot_ of good parts about it. The alternatives were a lot worse. That some parts were bad doesn't invalidate the good parts - be careful of hating the whole thing

2) You talk of something entering the public domain...The US doesn't do that anymore (tragic smiley)

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#29

Post by itistoday2 »

viraptor wrote: post #27
itistoday2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying that if a large group of people feel they are being abused by a system that does not represent them, they are always free to reject that system and adopt another one that does work for them. If you walk into a casino and notice that the rules appear to be rigged against you, do you try to work within the casino's system, perhaps petitioning the staff to change the rules to be more in your favor? You have…

I'd like this to succeed (really), but as far as we know, right now, you're choosing option 5 (venting online) while trying to convince us that 1, 2, 3, 4 are better. Show us what you've done. And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects.

> Show us what you've done.

My C.V.: https://fixingtao.com/cv/

EDIT: just noticed you stealth-edited this in:

> And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects.

Tech projects can fall under (4). Tor, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Silk Road, etc. were all tech projects representing withdrawal of consent through the creation of "new establishments". Creating a new country (if that's what you're referring to) also falls under (4) but requires a more cohesive community that does not knee-jerk downvote when told they have options. ;)

Re: Before I Can Fix This Tractor, We Have to Fix Copyright Law

#30

Post by [deleted] »

MereInterest wrote: post #25
dangrossman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part of the DMCA that lets sites and ISPs host/transmit user uploads without being sued on a daily basis is pretty nice.

Except that it does not require you to own the copyright in order to send a take-down notice. It does not even require you to have a reasonable belief that you own the copyright. All it requires is a "good faith belief".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN