Live data from Hacker News

EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

torrentfreak.com

261–270 of 275 posts

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if I set up a tent on your lawn and take it down whenever you want to play frisbee? You lose nothing. Much of northern europe has a "freedom to roam" making this explicitly legal and acceptable (within certain limits). Nobody is saying that all law should be based in property. There are plenty of laws that aren't based in property and that is ok. E.g., we don't say murder is wrong because it deprives someone o…

> Much of northern Europe has a "freedom to roam" I think this usually applies to large parks, forests and beaches etc; not residential lawns > there are many examples of "borrowing" that are considered acceptable can you give examples? of acceptable borrowing without consent, or in direct opposition to consent. > Society is not under a general responsibility to make people money What are the general responsibilities…

> can you give examples? of acceptable borrowing without consent, or in direct opposition to consent.

Well since we're talking about intellectual property, quoting is an obvious example. Often in debates (esp. Political) people will "borrow" their opposition's words against their will with the intention of making them look stupid.

Most science involves working off other's ideas, without the ideas originator's consent (but attribution is required).

> What are the general responsibilities of society?

That's a heavy philosophical question, and answers will vary. Usually involves ensuring the administration of justice and having a monoply on violence. Sometimes providing basic neccesesities is included. People often do include enforcing physical property rights here (i have never heard of people including intellectual prop rights, although there probably are people who feel that way). In some communist states, the right for every person to have a job is assumed, which i suppose could be taken to mean a responsibility to make people money. In capitalistic socities there is no garuntee of business success; the fundamental principle being either you should make money on your own merit or go out of business. At most there is a responsibility to create a fair marketplace, but what that means varries a lot.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the federal government be taken as the authority on the definition in terms in a non-legal context (most of the conversation here is about an ethical argument)?

Topic is a legal battle. I would think the onus is on people wanting to use words that have both legal and non-legal meanings in their non-legal way to specify it.

The post I responded to explicitly acknowledged it wasn't a legal argument. At least using the phrase "philosophical musings" seems that way to me.

Unless you want to make the argument that a philosophical argument and a legal argument are equivalent (which I would actually be quite interested in seeing).

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#263
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regret joining this topic because I think it invites arguments that are only philosophical and people are generally unlikely to change their minds from what they already believe. For example, when I read your comment I already know I disagree with you, and have but to set my fingertips to the keyboard to let the disagreement flow. In the same way, I know you'll disagree with me, and it's hard for me to see how ther…

What everyone is saying is exactly the opposite of philosophical. This is an argument of semantics. The existing supreme court rulings are crystal clear that they treat infringement as a different type of crime than theft, as they have different properties. No one is arguing with you about IF loss of sales can occur. They are telling you the legal definition of theft does not cover loss of potential. Hence the use of…

Do you genuinely interpret what I wrote as a claim that internet piracy met the legal definition of theft?

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#264
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But big budget AAA effects cost money, and somebody has to pay for them. On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) > In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS. > Yes, there are indie films, and indie creators. They're all over YouTube. Exactly. > Th…

>On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) I personally like some of these big budget movies. This reminds me of when I was talking on reddit about OSS games and if it would work if everyone did OSS games. I countered to another comment that modern games require a lot of money because artists have to put in a lot of work to make the music…

I do enjoy (some) of them.

But I often find a lower budget movie more enjoyable as the tend to concentrate more on having a better plot and wittier dialog.

In any case, if LOTR is what I have to give up in order to get an explosion of creativity by removing most copyright barriers, it's a fair trade.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But big budget AAA effects cost money, and somebody has to pay for them. On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) > In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS. > Yes, there are indie films, and indie creators. They're all over YouTube. Exactly. > Th…

> Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS. Yes they did. Most people started their programming careers by doing it for free at home. The 70s and 80s was full of people working on coding projects and sharing it with friends. This is what the OSS movement was born out of. The reason people don't make high quality films as much for free, is because the equipment and much more expensive. And it also requires a…

Yeah, there were hobbyists doing it. They weren't writing professional quality software, though.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But big budget AAA effects cost money, and somebody has to pay for them. On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) > In film/TV, people do not volunteer to act, or edit footage, or operate cameras. Programmers didn't do it much for free before OSS. > Yes, there are indie films, and indie creators. They're all over YouTube. Exactly. > Th…

> why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? Why don't they need them? Who decides what is worthy? The best answer is - the market. Ignore these movies and they might as well not exist for you.

My point is there's a heavy cost to society in the form of extensive copyright protections. Are the relatively few blockbuster movies worth compromising everything else? For example, myself and my buddies cannot create a new Star Trek episode, or a mashup of existing ST footage. I cannot create music that samples other tunes. Etc.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#267
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the other hand, why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? (Much of that being what the stars cost.) I personally like some of these big budget movies. This reminds me of when I was talking on reddit about OSS games and if it would work if everyone did OSS games. I countered to another comment that modern games require a lot of money because artists have to put in a lot of work to make the music…

I do enjoy (some) of them. But I often find a lower budget movie more enjoyable as the tend to concentrate more on having a better plot and wittier dialog. In any case, if LOTR is what I have to give up in order to get an explosion of creativity by removing most copyright barriers, it's a fair trade.

I don't think it's an entirely fair trade.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Much of northern Europe has a "freedom to roam" I think this usually applies to large parks, forests and beaches etc; not residential lawns > there are many examples of "borrowing" that are considered acceptable can you give examples? of acceptable borrowing without consent, or in direct opposition to consent. > Society is not under a general responsibility to make people money What are the general responsibilities…

> can you give examples? of acceptable borrowing without consent, or in direct opposition to consent. Well since we're talking about intellectual property, quoting is an obvious example. Often in debates (esp. Political) people will "borrow" their opposition's words against their will with the intention of making them look stupid. Most science involves working off other's ideas, without the ideas originator's consent…

Hmm, but I'm only taking about specifically copyrighted work, or works where the author has explicitly expressed that the work is not publicly available.

Most debates I see, the comments raise are wrt public comments, but otherwise I'd assume participants in a debate implicitly assume fair-use on relevant publications they have released.

I believe science works the same, the derived work isn't without consent, because the consent is implicit. So far as discoveries are copyrightable, they do require consent, and if they aren't they are usually kept secret, as trade secrets.

In the case of IP - it's pretty explicit (from the author) that consent is not granted without compensation.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why does society need movies that cost $100 million to make? Why don't they need them? Who decides what is worthy? The best answer is - the market. Ignore these movies and they might as well not exist for you.

My point is there's a heavy cost to society in the form of extensive copyright protections. Are the relatively few blockbuster movies worth compromising everything else? For example, myself and my buddies cannot create a new Star Trek episode, or a mashup of existing ST footage. I cannot create music that samples other tunes. Etc.

What is the high cost to society? If you want to mashup media that you have not created, you are essentially consuming that medium, or leveraging its fan-base despite not funding its growth. This applies to both large blockbusters, and small indie projects, that expect compensation.

Re: EFF and heavyweight legal team will defend Internet Archive against publishers

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're channeling Thomas Jefferson, who himself channeled a Zoroastrian idea. Jefferson said: "... no one possesses the less because everyone possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me receives [it] without lessening [me], as he who lights his [candle] at mine receives light without darkening me." [0] The flaw in this concept is the free-rider problem: 1. Not all new IP can be created as a side projec…

The fundamental issue with our copyright and patents laws are the length of validity. This in turn breeds more issues (with patents in particular) encouraging frivolous patents because there is such a long potential return on investment period. I recommend we decrease patent durations of all varieties by about 50% (patents should never last longer than 10 years as they do now [0]). For copyrights, there is some merit…

Small nitpick here. For drugs, novel drugs in particular, 20 years is actually the required amount of time for the pharma companies to actually turn a profit. The patent applications are submitted as soon as a viable drug is discovered. After this, it requires 10-15 years of animal testing, clinical trials, etc with costs amounting to 100s of millions to billions of dollars before it can be brought to market.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.4...

Post reply on HN