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

The next SOPA

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 173 posts

Re: The next SOPA

#131

Post by mikeash »

iamandrus wrote: post #42
mikeash wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could say that the MPAA's restrictions are also for the viewer's sake, and with the huge amount of viewers they obviously got that right. I don't believe it, but I don't see where it's wrong but the equivalent for Apple is right. Personally, I think Apple's policies are more destructive. They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.…

I never said that Apple was right. There are a lot of things I disagree with in regard to Apple (I hated the first iPhone, I really did). I said that you're comparing two completely different models and range of products. You're also assuming that everyone who uses a computer knows how to modify it and not break it. Understand that a lot of Apple users want a device that just works . They don't want to have to mess a…

Apple's restrictions do nothing but prevent things from "just working". It locks down where you can obtain apps, what you can do with them, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on Apple's end (example: iOS 4 was widely considered to be unusable on the iPhone 3G, yet it was impossible to downgrade unless you had the foresight to use circumvention tools in advance of iOS 4's release).

One could argue that DRM is required for there to be a thriving market in media, and therefore is to the user's benefit. Now, you don't believe that, I don't believe that, and maybe even the MPAA doesn't believe that, but the argument isn't invalid on its face. It's clear that restrictions which only limit users can be considered to be good for them. Apple's restrictions only limit users, yet you and many others argue that they're good for users.

I don't really care about Apple's intentions, care, or pride. I see Apple as pushing the entire world to a much worse model of computing. The MPAA, on the other hand, is fading into obsolescence one way or another.

Re: The next SOPA

#132

Post by narrator »

jerf wrote: post #102
narrator wrote: post #26

As I suggested in an earlier thread, why is noone starting a copyright liberalization campaign? If there was a strong political coalition to limit the duration of copyright to 25 years, to limit the use of overly broad patents, etc. it would provide a counteracting force that would force the copyright holders to compromise "in the middle". Instead we are doing boycotts and strongly worded letters, which while helpful…

Everyone would diffusely benefit from copyright liberalization, but it isn't the top priority for anyone. A few people (in relative terms) greatly benefit from copyright extension, and it is their top priority. I'm not sure there's a form of government that avoids this problem, but representative republic certainly isn't one of them.

Maybe this was the reason the Pirate Party of Germany and Sweden were formed. Someone had to make it their top issue.

Re: The next SOPA

#133

Post by cookiecaper »

ramanujan wrote: post #116

Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election. Because advertising can't happen, but articles can…

I actually think that the new unidirectional media monopoly that has emerged as TV and radio have become dominant is a large contributor to today's biggest problems in social thought. Before radio, local newspapers ruled and while they certainly do not accept input, it is easy to launch a competing paper; while presses weren't cheap necessarily, they were obtainable to men with reasonable means, and such men can be found on almost every side of an issue. It was common in the 1800s for a retaliatory newsletter or paper to publish and get roughly common circulation with the item whose claims it sought to address. Thus, people received both sides of an issue, and with some legwork could create a response and receive a more or less equivalent initial readership.

That changed immensely as we entered the radio age, where extremely expensive equipment was required to broadcast and there was some competition for a limited spectrum of airwaves. No longer could one semi-wealthy backer get a viewpoint published; it now took some very serious capital and/or investment only available by forming large amalgamations of wealthy people (or having a SERIOUSLY large backer on par with Rockefeller or other barons), and even if you got that together, you had to file requests for airspace which the government does exactly distribute loosely or quickly. The problem was exacerbated even further as television took over and expensive cameras, lights, and other equipment became necessary to produce a piece with equivalent credibility.

The internet has restored the equivalence and access of publication that existed in the days of paper and taken it further than it ever existed before; now there is almost no barrier to entry whatsoever to publish something across the whole world. Naturally, the corporations and interests that thrived with an exclusive voice among the people are beginning to wane and they are going down kicking and screaming. We will see what is ultimately required to root them out entirely.

Just think what would have become of the revolution if Thomas Paine's Common Sense went unread because everyone was too busy watching TV broadcasted by what were indeed 4 separate entities, but entities all friendly to the Crown which had already allotted them privileges and protection, and entities which were in identical businesses and therefore shared the same legal interests.

I think we have been thoroughly manipulated the last 70-100 years or so and I believe that we are continually reaping the consequences of that manipulation. Thank God for the internet and the freedom to publish which it restored, and which makes it among the most important structures in the world today.

Re: The next SOPA

#134

Post by InclinedPlane »

ramanujan wrote: post #116

Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election. Because advertising can't happen, but articles can…

Campaign finance reform is a bad idea. Not only would it also limit legitimate free speech it also wouldn't solve the problem. The real problem is excessive power in the hands of the government. Today congress has its fingers in every industry, to a degree that can easily result in causing the success or failure of one or another company based on their more or less arbitrary decisions. This creates a natural need to try to control or influence that power. If we take away the ability to contribute to campaigns then corporations and moneyed interests will simply turn to more direct forms of corruption.

In short corruption is a symptom, trying to stop the least objectionable types of it will merely drive it underground and more direct. The problem we need to solve is the ability of corruption to be successful.

Re: The next SOPA

#136

Post by pnathan »

cookiecaper wrote: post #133
ramanujan wrote: post #116

Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election. Because advertising can't happen, but articles can…

I actually think that the new unidirectional media monopoly that has emerged as TV and radio have become dominant is a large contributor to today's biggest problems in social thought. Before radio, local newspapers ruled and while they certainly do not accept input, it is easy to launch a competing paper; while presses weren't cheap necessarily, they were obtainable to men with reasonable means, and such men can be f…

There's also the flip side: when everyone can say something, they do, and we get a ton of cat pictures and other... less intellectually stimulating material. Or more pungently: Opinions are like ----, everyone's got one, and they don't always smell good.

There's some level of value in having some barrier to competition, it discourages the apathetic and very casual participant and encourages a higher signal:noise ratio in the discussion discussion.

Well, at least in my opinion. :)

Re: The next SOPA

#137

Post by comicjk »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #134
ramanujan wrote: post #116

Marco's heart is in the right place here, but campaign finance reform actually ends up disproportionately empowering media outlets. While various kinds of direct donations to candidates are capped or made more difficult by CFR, newspapers and television outlets aren't banned from writing stories on particular candidates, even up to the day or morning of the election. Because advertising can't happen, but articles can…

Campaign finance reform is a bad idea. Not only would it also limit legitimate free speech it also wouldn't solve the problem. The real problem is excessive power in the hands of the government. Today congress has its fingers in every industry, to a degree that can easily result in causing the success or failure of one or another company based on their more or less arbitrary decisions. This creates a natural need to…

I don't think this is a reasonable position at all, especially in my own industry, chemical engineering. The externalities that some businesses can impose on the public are so large that the public MUST have regulatory powers. If that encourages corruption we have to prosecute the corrupt, not weaken the oversight.

Re: The next SOPA

#138

Post by [deleted] »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #62
AdamFernandez wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree they are making money from these platforms, but independent artists are also making money and getting exposure using these platforms that would have been impossible a decade ago. If something is created that is more effective for artists (and possibly gives them a bigger cut..see Louis C.K.), this would be quite effective.

The only piece of the puzzle missing here is how would you finance the creation to begin with? I know a lot of the equipment has become cheaper but it's still expensive for an 18 year old kid to put in his garage. Not to mention the diverse skillset you would need to produce a record or movie. The record company being able to dangle an advance (not to mention the promotion and contacts they can hook them up with) see…

[deleted]

Re: The next SOPA

#139

Post by rhizome »

pnathan wrote: post #136
cookiecaper wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think that the new unidirectional media monopoly that has emerged as TV and radio have become dominant is a large contributor to today's biggest problems in social thought. Before radio, local newspapers ruled and while they certainly do not accept input, it is easy to launch a competing paper; while presses weren't cheap necessarily, they were obtainable to men with reasonable means, and such men can be f…

There's also the flip side: when everyone can say something, they do, and we get a ton of cat pictures and other... less intellectually stimulating material. Or more pungently: Opinions are like ----, everyone's got one, and they don't always smell good. There's some level of value in having some barrier to competition, it discourages the apathetic and very casual participant and encourages a higher signal:noise rati…

Way back in the 90s, a friend observed, "the problem with asking everybody what they think of something is that they'll tell you."

Re: The next SOPA

#140

Post by InclinedPlane »

comicjk wrote: post #137
InclinedPlane wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Campaign finance reform is a bad idea. Not only would it also limit legitimate free speech it also wouldn't solve the problem. The real problem is excessive power in the hands of the government. Today congress has its fingers in every industry, to a degree that can easily result in causing the success or failure of one or another company based on their more or less arbitrary decisions. This creates a natural need to…

I don't think this is a reasonable position at all, especially in my own industry, chemical engineering. The externalities that some businesses can impose on the public are so large that the public MUST have regulatory powers. If that encourages corruption we have to prosecute the corrupt, not weaken the oversight.

I do not mean an absence of regulation, I mean limits on regulation, regulation as nothing more than the rule of law, and far less excessive government spending and "earmarks". A company should properly be concerned with whether or not it is complying with the law, and that should be an existential concern especially when it comes to significant externalities.

A company should not be concerned with whether or not it has enough influence in Washington relative to its competitors.

I'd speculate that for most industries the latter tends to be a higher level of concern than the former, and that is not in any way ok.

Post reply on HN