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

61–70 of 126 posts

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#61

Post by the_af »

Guthur wrote: post #55
feanaro wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.

I'm in agreement, that's why small government at all costs :)

Neither the government nor the State function like a company nor do they have the same incentives or goals.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#62

Post by LexGray »

pdonis wrote: post #45
bscphil wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does. Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs…

> It's effectively the same concept, just extended. No, it isn't, because ordinary physical property can't be copied the way digital "property" can be. And the whole scheme of property rights with regard to ordinary physical property only makes sense because ordinary physical property can't be copied. If I steal your car, you are deprived of the car; that's why it's a crime for me to do it. But if I make a digital co…

So any information... Say human DNA, is free to copy if you shed your hair somewhere?

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#63

Post by the_af »

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.

Doctorow is referring to IP, which he explicitly claims is a mix of unrelated terms under an arbitrary umbrella, only one of which is copyright. IP also groups trademarks & patents, which are unrelated to copyright.

He also explains how each part of the so-called IP laws used to have an escape hatch, something that was useful to society at large even though the "owner" would prefer it didn't exist. And how, given the trend towards concentration of money and consolidation of monopolistic actors, these escape hatches are being eroded.

> Books do the same thing, do you find books abusive as well?

There's copyright for books, sure. But nothing else applies. I can resell books. I can quote them (with some restrictions, such as not quoting the entire book). I can lend them to whomever I choose. I can read them upside down. I can cut them up, I can pick a page and analyze its chemical composition. I can do all sorts of things that, when books turn into digital goods, their publishers make an effort to prevent me from doing -- making it effectively and practically illegal to try to bypass their arbitrary restrictions.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#64

Post by boomboomsubban »

paragraft wrote: post #48
boomboomsubban wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples of where it is not?

Can't speak to other countries but I know in NZ you're not allowed legally to rip DVDs or blurays you own (even just for private use, no distribution intended). The copyright act is structured with a whitelist of permissible format shifts, and while CDs made it onto that list, movie discs didn't.

This is true in America as well, though nobody cares. DVD's and bluray are protected with DRM, and you can only legally circumvent that DRM to use a short chunk as a critic or to develop accessibility features.

I am unaware of anyone prosecuted for ripping though, only several for developing/spreading the DRM circumvention.

Though, the other poster is right, that's a separate thing to what is being discussed.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#65

Post by frongpik »

kstrauser wrote: post #52

I think intellectual property should be taxed as are other properties and assets. This would seem to have the nice side effect of setting a monetary value in IP lawsuits. If you declare that your property is worth $X when you file taxes, you couldn’t really argue that it’s worth $10X when suing over violations of it. And frankly, I think IP should be taxed since holders rely on the government to protect it. If I have…

That's really clever to tie taxes to the declared scope of IP rights. Would be good to get this idea seen by Sanders. RIAA would do just about anything to stop this law. Right now they claim that a downloaded song (without their permission) or a movie makes them lose 10k usd a some fantasy amount in that range. But then IRS could multiply this amount by the number of songs they own and demand 2% - in line with property taxes. Better 3%, since IP rights, unlike houses, are active assets that bring royalties.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#66

Post by the_af »

onethought wrote: post #32
fabianhjr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

No it isn’t. As law. It might be accepted as practice. They are different.

Reselling, lending or giving away books is legal in my country and, as far as I know, most countries in Latin America. Nobody is turning a blind eye, it's actually legal.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where I cannot lend my book to whoever the hell I want. Or give it away.

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#67

Post by zepto »

feanaro wrote: post #50
zepto wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?

A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.

No single entity owns or controls any of those things, perhaps with the exception of search.

But more importantly - can you explain what you mean by a power imbalance?

Don’t all companies have a power imbalance of some kind with their users?

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#68

Post by frongpik »

jancsika wrote: post #54

I feel like we're passively reading a piece about this rather than doing anything about it because Stallman never thought, "How ya gonna pay the bills," was an interesting question. I offer WSB-- the assholiest of domains, yet one where that is an interesting question-- whose users are actually doing a better job of showing the world the corruption of their domain. I shall endeavor to write a weird piece of Gnu fan f…

People keep saying this about WSB. Is it just the abrasive language they use?

Re: Cory Doctorow: IP (2020)

#69

Post by Guthur »

the_af wrote: post #61
Guthur wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in agreement, that's why small government at all costs :)

Neither the government nor the State function like a company nor do they have the same incentives or goals.

Yes they are worse, they're practically untouchable. The delusion is that we've all convinced ourselves that some 4-5 yearly cycle popular voting system actually gives us any control whatsoever.

Big companies manipulate the power we've given over to government or lobby for the extra power to be given to the government for them to exploit. It's so obvious it has to be some sort of group psychosis that means we're all continuely having these same discussions.

Post reply on HN