U.S. Senators Introduce SMART Copyright Act to Combat Piracy • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by runnerup » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 2:58 AM UTC

vinyl7 wrote: post #97

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 si…

It's not full circle at all.

At no point has the status quo been:

> Here is service which provides any show you want for a reasonable one-time fee for watching that show.

Instead its:

> $200/mo for all cable channels. The show you want to watch is not playing tonight.

Or:

> Here are 7 different monthly subscriptions, each costs $15/mo. One of these services will have the program you want to watch, but good luck figuring out which one. Also 10% of what you want is not available on this "$105/mo multi-subscription", because it's an international cartoon.

What people want is what Netflix had before every Tom, Dick, and Harry decided to set up their own competing company (using their own IP as "exclusives"):

> Here's a $15/mo subscription, everything you could want to watch is here.

Netflix provided exactly that for long enough that people just stopped torrenting entirely. These days people would still settle for:

> Pay $1 for every TV show or Movie you want to watch. Paying the $1 lets you rewatch that episode infinite times until forever. This service contains every show you could possibly want to watch. There is a 4K HDR, lossless-compression mode for $1 extra...you should set aside some time before watching for that to download fully so that it doesn't buffer.

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

#102

Post by namlem » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 4:05 AM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #10

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…

You are not entitled to any movies or television shows at any quality at all because it's not your IP. If someone wants to shoot a movie and then lock it in a vault, never to be seen by anyone, Prince-style, that is their right. If they want to change it to remove and permanently memory-hole offensive elements, that is their right. If they want to release it only in certain formats, up to and including theatrical-onl…

Who cares? IP is a racket. It's criminal that copyrights we're ever extended beyond the original 14 years they were supposed to last.

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

#103

Post by namlem » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 4:06 AM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #41

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I don't like the law. Should we keep it just because it's the law? That'd be committing the is-ought fallacy: https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definit...

I would guess the general consensus is that you should change the law, but abide by it while it's still the law.

No, the general consensus is that you should break the law when you know you won't be caught anyway.

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

#104

Post by namlem » Tue, Mar 22, 2022, 4:10 AM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #32

perihelions wrote: post #9

Would a government-mandated upload filter pass constitutional scrutiny?

Interesting question. My first instinct was to answer "no", but after thinking a bit more, I'm less sure. Does a red light camera pass constitutional scrutiny? I think it's kind of the same logic: the law in question is constitutional; the new thing is just automating enforcement. The upload filter might be a bit different, though, because it's mandated on private servers . Is that enough to swing the question? I rea…

Red light cameras have been rules unconstitutional in my state and taken down fwiw.

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

#105

Post by gernb » Sat, Apr 02, 2022, 8:16 AM UTC

DebtDeflation wrote: post #58

gernb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm totally on board with copying is not theft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 Except that it is something. I go to my tax accountant, have them calculate my taxes, then, when they send me the filled out paperwork I make a copy, send back the originals, and say "No thanks. Didn't really need this". What would we call that? Theft of time? Theft of labor? Breach of contract? (I didn't sign a contract). Brea…

The analogy fails because the tax accountant has finite time to spend completing tax returns and your action directly took some of that time. Whereas with IP, there are not a limited amount of bits to copy and you making that copy did not restrict the availability of those bits to someone else.

The content makers also have limited time to make content. There's no difference. The accountant made some content, a tax form, I copied it. The movie maker made some content, a movie, I copied it.