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

31–40 of 199 posts

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

#31

Post by oneJob »

Let's rewind. VHS won because of porn. Listening to music is now a buffet style affair because of Napster. AC kicked DC in the nuts and the public applauded because it was better and it could.

I respect those working to improve the system from within, but also respectfully point out that change of the sort this article is talking about comes from the outside. Revolutions all have one thing in common. Out with the old, and in with the new. Copyright law is old, it is administered by old people, and it is kept in place by the old guard. Open source hardware, distributed open source software development, 3D printing, crowd funding, and on and on, these are all new.

You can attempt to evolve (fix) the old rules, you'll fail. It seems to me to be a safer bet to simply begin playing the new game, even though the rules are not totally worked out yet, even though people say it isn't legit, even though there are no referees to call foul or panel of judges to provide approval and award medals. Out with the old, and in with the new.

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

#32

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]

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

#33

Post by rosser »

itistoday2 wrote: post #29
viraptor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

"Withdrawal of consent" isn't merely "creating things to skirt around the rules I don't like". Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent.

You do not get to reap the benefits of living in a society without subscribing to its rules and mores. You can work to change them from within, or you can walk. Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shouldering your share of the responsibilities concomitant to those rights is spectacularly delusional.

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

#34

Post by Maken »

dangrossman wrote: post #16
jdjb wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, the only reason you have to worry about the lawsuits is because of stupid IP laws in the first place though.

Is the argument that copyright law was a stupid idea, or that 18th century lawmakers were stupid not to consider the law's impact on the internet?

The stupid thing is how 18th century's laws were updated on the 20th century.

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

#35

Post by err4nt »

ergothus wrote: post #28
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)

I'd love to hear more about #1. I don't know the history of the DMCA, and as a non-American I never heard about it before I saw it in action on Youtube.

What were the (subjectively worse) alternatives being talked about at the time, and what do you think the best way out of this mess from today moving forward would be?

You seem to hold a unique perspective on copyright issues I haven't hear before!

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

#36

Post by acdha »

jdjb wrote: post #7
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.

Arguably, the only reason you have to worry about the lawsuits is because of stupid IP laws in the first place though.

This requires equating “stupid” with “all”. Once you recognize a concept of copyright, lawsuits are inevitable once you allow users to share files.

All you need at that point is one copyright holder who believes – right or wrong – that you are in sufficiently zealous about protecting their content and, poof, lawsuit. This goes treble if you have money and the actual infringer is likely to be a broke college student in another country.

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

#37

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

viraptor wrote: post #8
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.

A part of that part is nice, yes. There's a different part of that part which forces them to take anything down on any valid request. That means you can request taking down any service at all if you made an "honest mistake". (for example https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150728/05285531772/wordp... but google knows much more)

Another way the process is biased in favor of takedowns is that the counter-notification procedure is designed to thoroughly de-anonymize any individual who files one. A valid takedown notification need only contain "reasonably sufficient" contact information. A counter-notification is explicitly required to contain name, address, and phone number.

I guess I can't fault the authors for failing to anticipate petty YouTube rivalries back in 1998, but it seems like the sole imagined use case was a respected corporation going after a pseudonymous warez jockey.

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

#38

Post by itistoday2 »

rosser wrote: post #33
itistoday2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'r…

"Withdrawal of consent" isn't merely "creating things to skirt around the rules I don't like". Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent . You do not get to reap the benefits of living in a society without subscribing to its rules and mores. You can work to change them from within, or you can walk. Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shoulderi…

> Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent.

You haven't actually defined "withdrawing consent" there, you've just repeated the phrase "withdrawing consent".

> Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shouldering your share of the responsibilities concomitant to those rights is spectacularly delusional.

Nice feigned outrage + strawman.

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

#39

Post by rosser »

itistoday2 wrote: post #38
rosser wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Withdrawal of consent" isn't merely "creating things to skirt around the rules I don't like". Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent . You do not get to reap the benefits of living in a society without subscribing to its rules and mores. You can work to change them from within, or you can walk. Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shoulderi…

> Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent. You haven't actually defined "withdrawing consent" there, you've just repeated the phrase "withdrawing consent". > Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shouldering your share of the responsibilities concomitant to those rights is spectacularly delusional. Nice feigned outrage + strawman.

So tell me what would constitute "withdrawing consent" that doesn't mean "itistoday2 gets to participate in modern society without having to play by its rules", because AFAICT, those are the choices: play the game everyone else agrees to play and reap the benefits, or play your own game and forfeit them.

EDIT: verbiage.

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

#40

Post by Riseed »

viraptor wrote: post #18
Riseed wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it changes anything likely depends how you do it. For example, writing a letter to the editor may not change much, while renouncing citizenship would likely change a lot in practice.

But to renounce your citizenship you have to have another place to live. Unless you create your own country, or go meet the entire government, you're still "ruled by what a handful of people you've never met".

One could emigrate to or create a micronation or microstate. Sealand is a fairly well known micronation. The Conch Republic [0] is another, and is an example of (on multiple occasions) withdrawing consent from being ruled by the outside government.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic

Post reply on HN