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

U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#91

Post by autoexec »

QuikAccount wrote: post #88
autoexec wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You aren't entitled to anything anyone creates. I don't think that's always true even now, but it certainly shouldn't be. When something becomes of a part of our culture, and our history, it belongs to all of us. No one is entitled to anything someone else creates until it is shared. Once it is, ownership is also somewhat shared. If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep…

> If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, th…

> . No one is saying you can't hum a song but you certainly aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song.

The media industry says that you cannot. Doing so can have severe penalties under the law. They wrote those laws. Hum just a few of the wrong notes in a song you're writing and you can be sued for millions. Create a base line too similar to one you've heard in another song and they'll see you in court. Hum a few bars of something on your youtube channel and Content-ID will cause you to lose your income and put your ability to participate on one of the largest global platforms at risk, not because YouTube cares, but because if they aren't hyper-aggressive about enforcing the copyrights of others the media industry will take YouTube to court. We're at the point now where creating an original work in the same _genre_ as someone can open you up to costly court battles (https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/20/tale-two-hit-songs-inspi...).

It was increases in the accessibility of printing and literacy which caused copyright law to be created. Although we've moved from printing presses and dictation to lossless downloads today it doesn't change the underlying struggle of balancing the freedoms of the average person, the need to support and encourage creators, the harm to progress and creativity caused by limiting the public's access to content, and the desires of certain people to act as gatekeepers for power and profit.

Once you start talking about who is "entitled" to what it's critical to keep in mind what copyright was created to accomplish and what it has actually become.

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#92

Post by QuikAccount »

autoexec wrote: post #91
QuikAccount wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, th…

> . No one is saying you can't hum a song but you certainly aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song. The media industry says that you cannot. Doing so can have severe penalties under the law. They wrote those laws. Hum just a few of the wrong notes in a song you're writing and you can be sued for millions. Create a base line too similar to one you've heard in another song and they'll see you in court. Hum…

Most of those examples you describe are frivolous lawsuits and would fall under Fair Use. Humming a sound on your Youtube channel for example. This highlights a different problem, the fact these large companies can essentially bully you for no reason and unless you are willing to have an expensive legal battle you have no real recourse.

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#93

Post by autoexec »

jart wrote: post #90
autoexec wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You aren't entitled to anything anyone creates. I don't think that's always true even now, but it certainly shouldn't be. When something becomes of a part of our culture, and our history, it belongs to all of us. No one is entitled to anything someone else creates until it is shared. Once it is, ownership is also somewhat shared. If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep…

There are so many local and indie artists who are willing to give you their work for free and would be thrilled to see you copying it to your friends. Those are the people who care about the free flow of information the most. They're also usually the ones who respect the intentions of creators the most. Because if you won't agree to pay money for it and be forbidden from copying, then the smart thing to do isn't to p…

I agree, the best thing we can do is to try to create new works outside of the current media industry/copyright system. It's increasingly dangerous to do that however. Part of the reason copyright law is so aggressively enforced and expanded is to make it more risky for people to create and publish their own works.

While I fully agree, we should try to support independent creators when possible, but even then people are still left with nothing but terrible choices. Should they cut themselves off from fantastic pieces of art and massive parts of their culture? Should they financially support the broken system and greedy industry holding art, culture, and progress hostage? Should they risk increasingly severe legal penalties for accessing content without authorization?

I think ultimately the answer is going to be a combination of everything. Right now, the media industry has the lawmakers working exclusively for them. Until we can get representatives who'll represent us we'll likely have to resort to increasingly creating, sharing, and consuming art outside of copyright law.

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#94

Post by autoexec »

QuikAccount wrote: post #92
autoexec wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . No one is saying you can't hum a song but you certainly aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song. The media industry says that you cannot. Doing so can have severe penalties under the law. They wrote those laws. Hum just a few of the wrong notes in a song you're writing and you can be sued for millions. Create a base line too similar to one you've heard in another song and they'll see you in court. Hum…

Most of those examples you describe are frivolous lawsuits and would fall under Fair Use. Humming a sound on your Youtube channel for example. This highlights a different problem, the fact these large companies can essentially bully you for no reason and unless you are willing to have an expensive legal battle you have no real recourse.

You can say those cases are frivolous, but it hasn't stopped Robin Thicke from being ordered to pay out millions. Fair use doesn't always prevail in court or even within youtube when it should.

There is a chilling effect on creativity when this happens. There will be fewer people willing to risk a massive financial burden by creating something independently if sounding too similar to something else could get you sued into bankruptcy by a group that already has essentially endless wealth.

Currently, the industry doesn't even want the burden of dealing with the court system. They put pressure on youtube under threat of legal action to act on their behalf for free. It's the same with ISPs. The DMCA gave ISPs legal immunity from acts of copyright infringement committed by their subscribers, but only under very specific and poorly defined circumstances.

Right now, they are fighting in courts against half a dozen different ISPs to try to define that wording so that they can make unsubstantiated accusations against internet users and if an ISP doesn't cut the accused individual off from their service forever, the ISP can be sued for billions. No court case or evidence proving that the subscriber has done anything will be needed. If they say someone did it often enough, their service has to be cut off forever. Because some users don't have many options for internet access getting permanently kicked off an ISP can mean getting cut off from the internet entirely, but court cases are time consuming for the media industry so they are willing to let that happen if it means they can make your ISP into their free copyright police. So far, in the courts the media industry is winning.

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#95

Post by webmaven »

lkxijlewlf wrote: post #29

Maybe the "rights holders" should invent the technology and let streaming services use it. That way the "rights holders" are on the hook for piracy.

> Maybe the "rights holders" should invent the technology and let streaming services use it.

That's exactly what they have done before (eg. region-locked DVD players, Selectable Output Control[0], Macrovision, HDCP, etc.[1]), and all it has ever done is cause pain and confusion to consumers ("Why does my DVD player not work when I hook it to the TV through the VCR, or vice versa?"), with nary a blip in piracy rates.

> That way the "rights holders" are on the hook for piracy.

That's wishful thinking. The rights-holding media companies are never responsible[2], that burden falls solely on "implementors".

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectable_Output_Control

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Compact_Disc_and_DVD...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Copy_Control_Association

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#96

Post by washadjeffmad »

QuikAccount wrote: post #88
autoexec wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You aren't entitled to anything anyone creates. I don't think that's always true even now, but it certainly shouldn't be. When something becomes of a part of our culture, and our history, it belongs to all of us. No one is entitled to anything someone else creates until it is shared. Once it is, ownership is also somewhat shared. If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep…

> If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, th…

> aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song

Why not? It wasn't a problem to copy and distribute non-commercially just in my lifetime. Surely society as a whole was not robbed of one of its social and cultural rights to satisfy the greed of some special interests who want nothing more than to co-opt our own traditions and force us to pay rent on them?

The US was built on "piracy" as a copyright-free zone against their then enemy, Great Britain. Ships carried copies of books that sometimes were reprinted and distributed before they were available at large to their own markets because of the efficiency of US enterprise. Russia declares the same, and we get laws drafted in under a week.

Instead of more of these frivolous shakedowns and penny-wringers against the public, the laws we really need written should govern who inherits their senators when a billionaire dies.

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#97

Post by vinyl7 »

uo21tp5hoyg wrote: post #5

I don't pirate music, I don't pirate games, I don't pirate software, I don't pirate anything but TV and movies and the reason is simple: piracy is a service problem for me. I know where to get music/games/software, I have no idea where to get the movies and TV I want to watch, they're spread over 20 different services, 90% of which are not available in my country and the ones that are don't have that specific content…

> piracy is a service problem for me. I know where to get music/games/software, I have no idea where to get the movies and TV I want to watch, they're spread over 20 different services, 90% of which are not available in my country and the ones that are don't have that specific content available in my country, I've even ran into issues where a streaming service say they for sure have some content and I just need to sign up to start watching, great! but after signing up and paying boop nope that content isn't available in your country anymore.

Just as an observational aside...

I remember back in the Digg days where people were complaining about how expensive cable TV was and that they would rather pay less for access to only the specific shows/channels that they actually watched.

No judgement, I just find it interesting how things are coming full circle

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#98

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

Someone1234 wrote: post #67
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #52

I didn't see any mention of fixing the biggest problem with the current system: no penalties for false claims. If I post a video of myself playing moonlight sonata to youtube, and somebody puts a copyright claim (or more than one) against it, then it gets taken down and I suffer the consequences, but there is no mechanism for penalties for what amounts to fraud by the claimant. They should automatically get fined (pa…

- A false DMCA takedown notice can result in a lawsuit including damages and legal fees. - Most YouTube takedowns have nothing to do with the DMCA as YouTube has their own proprietary system. This system is extrajudicial. This system has the type of problems you're raising and little recourse. I actually think the DMCA takedown process itself is problematic, but YouTube's own private one is a whole extra level of abu…

> A false DMCA takedown notice can result in a lawsuit including damages and legal fees.

Only in a very narrow sense of "false": if the issuer of the takedown claims they have copyright over something they don't. The statement that they have a copyright on some work is made under penalty of perjury.

The statement that your work infringes on their copyright is not made under any penalties at all, and there are no consequences for falsely claiming infringement.

So if you play the Moonlight Sonata, I can't claim that I own the copyright to the Moonlight Sonata and you're infringing. I can claim that I own the copyright to some actual work I own the copyright to (even if totally unrelated) and that your work infringes it.

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#99

Post by QuikAccount »

washadjeffmad wrote: post #96
QuikAccount wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone wants to write a song and have total control over it they just need to keep it to themselves because once I hear it, I naturally have a right to hum that tune to myself for the rest of the day, or to sing it at the top of my lungs. If someone wants total control over a story they write they should keep it to themselves because once I hear or read it, it's my natural right to be allowed to remember it, th…

> aren't entitled to a lossless download of that song Why not? It wasn't a problem to copy and distribute non-commercially just in my lifetime. Surely society as a whole was not robbed of one of its social and cultural rights to satisfy the greed of some special interests who want nothing more than to co-opt our own traditions and force us to pay rent on them? The US was built on "piracy" as a copyright-free zone aga…

Let me flip the question, as the creator of a song, why am I obligated to provide you a lossless download of it?

Re: U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy

#100

Post by heavyset_go »

autoexec wrote: post #69
goosedragons wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when Blu-rays started wasting your bandwidth to show you ads you can't skip. Such progress.

The increased DRM was a bit part of the push to get people to switch from DVD to Blu-ray. I've had phone calls with confused and frustrated relatives who wanted to know why it is they can't play the movie they just bought at the store. I had to tell them that it's because their blu-ray player needs to be connected to the internet in order to beg for permission to play the new movie. The player didn't support wireless…

This post makes me glad that I never invested in the Blu-ray ecosystem.
Post reply on HN