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

Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#21

Post by sodality2 »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #18
tracedddd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.

> Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless. I invite you to apply this logic to your personal data.

The difference being that the personal data should not be collected in the first place.

And I don't get paid for having my data taken and sold, except in "free services"

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#22

Post by tracedddd »

drknownuffin wrote: post #17
tracedddd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.

But it really isn't limitless, is it? We can abstract it into a 'bit arrangement', but that arrangement didn't emerge from entropy independently - someone invested time, effort, and other scarce resources to arrange those bits in a valuable, non-random configuration. The person copying clearly values that arrangement, or they wouldn't be copying it.

Perhaps they did invest time, but I’m not convinced that should give them the right to place a restriction on others.

If I have an empty hard drive and copy someone’s mp3 a thousand times on it, without permission, what is really lost? Have I really harmed this person or stolen from them in any meaningful sense? If I then delete the data, is that really justice?

Both directions lead to some laws that seem wrong at face value - illegal primes on one side and “pro” revenge porn on the other. I only argue it’s not as clear cut as physical property, and that we are probably too far on the digital copyright side, rather than the data is free side.

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#24

Post by jfengel »

djbebs wrote: post #15
fortran77 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't people have a right to their property?

Givernment granted monopolies are not property.

Uh... they aren't?

They can be bought and sold. A company is a government-granted monopoly on the resources of that company, including its contracts with employees and contracts for services. You can buy and sell that company. Originally, all corporations were government-granted charters, and a lot of that notion is retained.

Government manages your monopoly over your real estate -- if somebody tries to use it you're not left to your own devices to defend it.

In a sense all property is a government-granted monopoly, including intangible rights. Intellectual property is a special case and you can argue that it shouldn't be included, but to dismiss government grants in the role of property seems to miss a lot about how the law works.

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#26

Post by bcrosby95 »

tracedddd wrote: post #14
fortran77 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't people have a right to their property?

I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.

Funny, I kinda disagree for the same reason you state.

A physical object that you "own" was created from something literally no one created. The person you bought that from had no more right to that natural resource than anyone else (except that people with guns say they do). By "owning" that natural resource they had no process in creating they are keeping it from other people that could have made other things out of it.

However, ideas and digital things are not created from a limited, natural resource. Me keeping it from you is not keeping you from making your own idea or abstract thing from the same "stuff".

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#27

Post by jareklupinski »

cheeze wrote: post #2

Can they actually go after any of these entities? Seems like at this point it's pretty trivial to set up a website which proxies manifest files and injects DRM keys directly... Good luck, but I'd assume these folks are all in non extradition countries, or have covered their tracks pretty well...

can't wait to see Jake Paul v. ItsLilBrandon

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#28

Post by sokoloff »

tracedddd wrote: post #14
fortran77 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't people have a right to their property?

I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.

No one is limiting people from certain bit arrangements. If you, entirely on your own, construct the exact bit arrangement that represents this video stream, you're perfectly within your rights to watch it.

What copyright law prevents is for you to copy the stream of bits from the original source.

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#29

Post by antasvara »

sodality2 wrote: post #21
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless. I invite you to apply this logic to your personal data.

The difference being that the personal data should not be collected in the first place. And I don't get paid for having my data taken and sold, except in "free services"

Agree with the first part somewhat if there's a legal issue with collecting personal data. But for the second part, we're operating under the assumption that "it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying." This necessarily implies that your personal data doesn't actually have any worth. As such, the collection of it doesn't need to be paid for.

I think there has to be some distinctions for what qualifies as data with monetary worth. I don't know where exactly that line should be drawn, but I think (as you've made clear with the personal data example) that at some point data goes from an arbitrary arrangement of bits to something of value.

Re: Pirates who illegally streamed Jake Paul v Ben Askren targeted in lawsuit

#30

Post by andrewzah »

tracedddd wrote: post #14
fortran77 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't people have a right to their property?

I feel like this is a rhetorical question, but I’m not very confident that they should when it comes to data. It’s definitely less clear cut than physical ownership in my opinion. Abstractly it seems wrong to limit people from certain bit arrangements without paying. The source is limitless.

"to limit people from certain bit arrangements"

I don't understand how things can apparently have no restrictions just because it comes down to "digital bits".

Life and the physical objects within it are "just ~~bits~~ molecules", that we re-arrange in specific ways.

People spend time making things that we like and enjoy. Observing that as "certain bit arrangements" completely downplays the work and ideas that the author(s) put into it. Why does transferring that electronically instead of acoustically/visually/physically mean we throw ownership out the window?

No one is forcing people to pay for musicians' or film makers' "specially arranged bits". People just feel entitled to having things for free, completely ignoring the time, effort, production costs etc that went into producing said things because the end products now are -digital-.

Post reply on HN