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

Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 369 posts

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#111

Post by autoexec »

acomjean wrote: post #46
xoa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree that any single fixed term makes sense. Rather, I think it'd be better if the exponential cost to society (in terms of works that don't happen, and works that don't happen based on those works that didn't happen and so on compounding) was just part of the yearly renewal price. Do maybe everyone gets 7 years flat to start with, then it costs $100*1.3^(year). So after another 25 years it'd be aroun…

I think this is a great idea. Free then make it cost more. A lot could enter the public domain, and valuable IP could be kept by companies as long as they’re willing to pay.

I think that's a horrible idea. There's zero benefit to society in letting corporations like Disney that can afford to pay keep works out of the public domain longer than others.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#112

Post by kube-system »

shevy-java wrote: post #89
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are around ~500 millions guns in the US according to a quick Google. There's a lot of crime in the US, but I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Also you can buy a gun and just shoot it at a range.

> I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.

You are oversimplifying the situation beyond the entire point of this ruling --

Cox internet is sometimes used to commit copyright infringement, but it is designed and marketed for legal purposes. Guns are also sometimes used for illegal purposes, but they are designed and marketed for legal purposes.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#113

Post by socalgal2 »

shevy-java wrote: post #87

> The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement So they try to hold the provider responsible. While I disagree with this, I can at the least understand some rationale behind it, even though this is inconsistent. For instance, if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held a…

> if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here?

The gun company will claim they sold for self defense or just for a hobbyist's collection - They'll claim that the gun owner used it for something else is not their responsibility. Same for any or product that can be used to kill someone with.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#115

Post by dwedge »

joering2 wrote: post #69
achandlerwhite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

[flagged]

This is an instance of begging the question "if the overwhelming amount of used guns are used to accompany crime then how can you argue otherwise".

But there's no substance to your premise. 400 million owned guns, 50,000 deaths a year, it's a long way from the overwhelming majority.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#116

Post by [deleted] »

freedomben wrote: post #94
shevy-java wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.

Just curious, do you feel the same way about knife manufacturers? Or automotive makers?

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#117

Post by phillipseamore »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #45
xoa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree that any single fixed term makes sense. Rather, I think it'd be better if the exponential cost to society (in terms of works that don't happen, and works that don't happen based on those works that didn't happen and so on compounding) was just part of the yearly renewal price. Do maybe everyone gets 7 years flat to start with, then it costs $100*1.3^(year). So after another 25 years it'd be aroun…

How about something like IP as a tax? IE: if you make profit off of it, then it cranks up. There's plenty of music artists who's song blow up a decade or more later.

When old art gets a revival like that it's usually because the work is being reused (e.g. song used in an ad, Tv show, movie), something that costs time and money to license when done legally. How many artists lost their chances because navigating copyright is tedious and expensive?

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#118

Post by dwedge »

shevy-java wrote: post #89
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are around ~500 millions guns in the US according to a quick Google. There's a lot of crime in the US, but I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Also you can buy a gun and just shoot it at a range.

> I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.

Strawman argument. Inflicting harm does not automatically equal a crime. And you're also disregarding the use of guns as a deterrent.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#120

Post by underlipton »

autoexec wrote: post #111
acomjean wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a great idea. Free then make it cost more. A lot could enter the public domain, and valuable IP could be kept by companies as long as they’re willing to pay.

I think that's a horrible idea. There's zero benefit to society in letting corporations like Disney that can afford to pay keep works out of the public domain longer than others.

If Disney had to pay the federal government a few billion each to keep absolute control over their oldest works, every year, no tax games, that would be pretty great for society. But it's also probably true that the tax games would indeed ensue. Something something low trust, we can't have nice things.
Post reply on HN