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

Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 126 posts

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#21

Post by onethought »

stonecraftwolf wrote: post #16
onethought wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.

If you read the essay in full, you’d see that he distinguishes between copyright laws meant to encourage authorship and what is currently meant under the “IP umbrella,” which is more about protecting monopoly power.

Yes, he does conflate a bunch of behaviour into IP. But that’s just his conflation.

Monopolistic practices exist with or without IP laws, terms of service, etc.

Take a look at some other industries: energy companies have protected fossil fuel exploitation and stifled research and adoption of nuclear and green alternatives.

Finance industry have maintained monopoly and avoided regulation despite there being obvious harm to their practice.

These behaviours are related to capitalism... not intellectual property.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#22

Post by onethought »

NobodyNada wrote: post #19
onethought wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.

> Books do the same thing Huh? If I have a book, I can lend it to a friend, sell it on eBay, or even put it in a library where thousands of people can read it for free. If I "own" a book on a Kindle, I can do none of those things -- and if our corporate overlords decide they don't want me to read that book anymore, then they can remotely remove it from my device, even if I paid for it [0]. The abuse is that DRM is be…

In your book example... I don’t think you can (legally) redistribute your book. It’s just publishers don’t really care if you do, because cost of enforcement is too high. That’s why they like kindles.

Software used to be like this too, back when it was distributed as a physical thing (disks).

DRM was about protecting copyright, your book/kindle example was a perfect illustrator of that. But I agree, it has been weaponised and misused.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#23

Post by namibj »

onethought wrote: post #22
NobodyNada wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Books do the same thing Huh? If I have a book, I can lend it to a friend, sell it on eBay, or even put it in a library where thousands of people can read it for free. If I "own" a book on a Kindle, I can do none of those things -- and if our corporate overlords decide they don't want me to read that book anymore, then they can remotely remove it from my device, even if I paid for it [0]. The abuse is that DRM is be…

In your book example... I don’t think you can (legally) redistribute your book. It’s just publishers don’t really care if you do, because cost of enforcement is too high. That’s why they like kindles. Software used to be like this too, back when it was distributed as a physical thing (disks). DRM was about protecting copyright, your book/kindle example was a perfect illustrator of that. But I agree, it has been weapo…

You can't distribute copies of the book (outside of limited exceptions). First Sale doctrine says you can pretty much do whatever you want with the physical item.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#24

Post by a1369209993 »

onethought wrote: post #13
stonecraftwolf wrote: post #4

“IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.” Doctorow never uses this word, but the dynamic he describes — where tech companies, rather than try to keep customers by offering good products, prefer to keep customers by making it impossible for them to leave — is fundamentally abusive. The entire essay is a detailed explanation of the ways that tech…

So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well? I don’t quite buy the leap that “software companies being exploitative” is at all related to “protecting IP through the use of copyright”. Cory does not link the two successfully in my mind.

> So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well?

If by "books" you mean "copyright on books, as enforced against people rather than corporations[0]", then yes, yes 'they' are.

0: Nitpick: legal action against a corporation for printing something by request from a particular customer is legal action against that customer, the same as if you'd prosecuted 15'000$ that you stole from their car for being drug money.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#25

Post by nfoz »

naringas wrote: post #6

what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property. how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?

Agreed. For example, a device which augments my memory by allowing me to replay and record my own experiences, would invariably violate copyright. Which is offensive to me.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#26

Post by onethought »

namibj wrote: post #23
onethought wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your book example... I don’t think you can (legally) redistribute your book. It’s just publishers don’t really care if you do, because cost of enforcement is too high. That’s why they like kindles. Software used to be like this too, back when it was distributed as a physical thing (disks). DRM was about protecting copyright, your book/kindle example was a perfect illustrator of that. But I agree, it has been weapo…

You can't distribute copies of the book (outside of limited exceptions). First Sale doctrine says you can pretty much do whatever you want with the physical item.

Huh, I wasn’t familiar with that (again another US nuance to Copyright). This isn’t globally accepted.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#27

Post by visarga »

The author makes a point about interoperability, and I wholly agree. But it must be balanced with diversity, we don't care just about being interoperable, we want a thousand flowers to bloom.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#28

Post by fabianhjr »

onethought wrote: post #26
namibj wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't distribute copies of the book (outside of limited exceptions). First Sale doctrine says you can pretty much do whatever you want with the physical item.

Huh, I wasn’t familiar with that (again another US nuance to Copyright). This isn’t globally accepted.

It is globally accepted. There are many community libraries throughout the world that consist on a small shelf on a sidewalk where people leave books for others and take the ones they are interested in.

https://littlefreelibrary.org/

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#29

Post by sounds »

II2II wrote: post #17
kmeisthax wrote: post #7

Software copyright was an absolute mistake that fundamentally misunderstood the delicate balances between copyright owners, the market for creative works, and the public at large. I have no faith in Congress to fix it.

Keep in mind that copyright also enables free software. Without it, there would be no incentive to share source code since there would be no mechanism to stipulate that modified versions must be shared. That would significantly diminish the role of collaboration and significantly increase the role of opportunism. It is also worth noting that copyright increases the financial incentive to progress the state of the art…

Copyleft is generally regarded as a clever "fix" because of the brokenness of software copyright. Cory Doctorow even addresses this at the beginning of this article. He mentions that the GPL came out around the same time software copyright was first implemented. He distinguishes between copyleft (the "icing") and interoperability (the "cake") to point out how the new software copyrights took away interoperability. By the end of the article, he suggests we have no more cake and the icing may vanish soon.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#30

Post by dmurray »

fabianhjr wrote: post #28
onethought wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I wasn’t familiar with that (again another US nuance to Copyright). This isn’t globally accepted.

It is globally accepted. There are many community libraries throughout the world that consist on a small shelf on a sidewalk where people leave books for others and take the ones they are interested in. https://littlefreelibrary.org/

And plenty of used bookstores, who do the same thing commercially and generally don't even get nasty letters from publishers.
Post reply on HN