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

121–130 of 369 posts

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

#121

Post by MadnessASAP »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #78
tencentshill wrote: post #74

This isn't good. They can still sue you, but now they need proof that you as an individual behind that public IP did it. This will only incentivize them to join the push for ID requirements.

They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees. At worst, universities crack down harder on torrents, but that was always an option for labels.

> They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees.

You may not be old enough to remember this, but that's exactly what they did in the 2000's

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

#122

Post by underlipton »

phillipseamore wrote: post #117
calvinmorrison wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The two biggest examples I can think of were because of a joke (Never Gonna Give You Up) and a glitch (Plastic Love).

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

#123

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

thot_experiment wrote: post #9

A tiny victory. Copyright should not be more than a decade. This intellectual property system is one of the worst things to happen in modern society is what I would have said a few years ago, now I got bigger problems but I'm still mad.

[flagged]

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

#124

Post by awesome_dude »

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.

Disney are able to pay that amount because their IP is still generating massive income.

I'm not a fan of Disney at all, just pointing out what i belive might be the flaw in the argument.

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

#125

Post by johnnyanmac »

MadnessASAP wrote: post #121
johnnyanmac wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees. At worst, universities crack down harder on torrents, but that was always an option for labels.

> They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees. You may not be old enough to remember this, but that's exactly what they did in the 2000's

There's a lot more 23 year olds to this time around. I don't think you can intimidate them down this time.

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

#126

Post by aksss »

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..why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here?

They absolutely can be held accountable. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has carve-outs for: negligent entrustment - when a dealer or manufacturer provides a firearm knowing it will be used for a crime; negligence per se - when a seller knowingly violated state or federal laws in the sale or marketing of the product (and that sale was a proximate cause of the harm); defects in design; breach of contract/warranty.

However, selling a product for lawful use, whether a gun, truck, or Internet connectivity, does not make the seller liable if the consumer decides to use that otherwise lawful product for crimes. There has to be some assumption of agency (and liability) on the part of the individual who is clearing ethical/moral hurdles to do wrong.

I don't see how this unanimous court decision conflicts with that theory in the context of the ISP - in fact, I think it's a reinforcement of some common sense.

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

#127

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

MBCook wrote: post #104
plagiarist wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are already incentivized enough by selling the data, more incentives won't change anything.

The ruling said that they don’t have to. Going with your point, it does not say they can’t monitor and then sell the list of pirates to Sony/etc. for some extra income. They just didn’t like doing it for free.

Yes, but then the question becomes: which tactics does MPAA and the like will now resort to. Because we know they won't exactly say 'I guess that's it then'.

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

#128

Post by megaman821 »

nekusar wrote: post #103

I have to pay property tax forever for a house I supposedly own. If I dont pay that, the government sues and takes my house. Basically I never actually own my house. (Of course, we have "Evil Communist China" where there is no property tax, and people own their homes and can live there. Id argue they're more free than we are.) But copyrights and patents and trademarks? There's no tax on those "properties". And gee, c…

What? You pay property tax because local services schools, streets, police and fire fighters need to be funded. Having a property in the area is a pretty great proxy for using some of these services, hence the property tax.

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

#129

Post by jetrink »

Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., also known as the "Betamax case."

> (a) “The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434.

> In Sony, copyright owners sued the maker and the retailers of the Betamax video tape recorder. Id., at 422. The tape recorder could be used to record copyrighted television programs for later personal viewing, which would not constitute infringement. Id., at 449. On the other hand, it could also be used to reproduce and sell copyrighted television programming, which would constitute infringement. Ibid. The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” Id., at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court reversed, concluding that “[t]he Betamax is . . . capable of substantial noninfringing uses”—like personal use—so “sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement.” Id., at 456.

Post reply on HN