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

H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#121

Post by OutOfHere »

palmotea wrote: post #68
OutOfHere wrote: post #51

Anything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.

> [Copyright] is a societal evil. Such an extreme and emotional statement makes me think you've never really thought it through. For instance: without copyright the GPL is nothing . Also without copyright, all of the profit made on creative works (of a perhaps smaller pie) would get be kept by distributors like Amazon or Netflix. Authors wouldn't get a dime anymore, it'll all go to the likes of Bezos.

Besides the unfairly long duration of protection, intellectual property also is unfairly used to squash small firms via frivolous lawsuits.

I won't use an argument in favor of AI training here because AI can probably still be trained by fair-use information extraction from copyrighted works.

Without copyright, we can return to a patronage based system. Both rich and poor consumers gladly offer proportional patronage for authors they truly believe in.

Humanity will progress just fine via its scientific works which don't really require a copyright. Arxiv proves it.

The cost imposed by GPL not working will be negligible compared to the benefit of free use.

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#122

Post by dredmorbius »

delecti wrote: post #115
dredmorbius wrote: post #111

The question of why US copyright law is administered and, to some extent regulated within the Legislative rather than Executive branch has been raised in a dead thread. The cogent point is made that under the US Constitution, the phrase "checks and balances" generally applies to both the division of powers amongst the three branches (Judiciary in addition to the two previously mentioned), and the principle of review…

It's in the constitution. Article I, Section 8, clause 8: > The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... Unless your question was more, "why was that written into the constitution". In which c…

The Constitutional power of Congress is to enact laws, but not to execute them. Article I generally lists other authorities of Congress, e.g., "to coin money", but the Treasury is an Administrative office, not a Legislative one. Another interesting example would be the establishment of a Post Office, which is now an independent agency, though under the Executive.

You'll also find: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." Art II, Sec 1. That establishes the Separation concept, though neither "separation of powers" nor "checks and balances" are explicitly stated in the US Constitution. They are part of the political discussion in which the Constitution was framed, however.

*

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#123

Post by OutOfHere »

tgv wrote: post #81
OutOfHere wrote: post #51

Anything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.

Last time someone uttered something similar, I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it to you: what entitles you to free access to any song, movie or book?

Your question is a loaded question founded on a false premise that the author of the content has an innate right to its viewership. There is no such innate right.

Also, the argument that you made elsewhere about "damages" is nonsense because there is no damage from someone viewing what they were never going to pay for anyway, and there also is no deprivation.

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#124

Post by iririririr »

thereisnospork wrote: post #50
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't mention parties because it's irrelevant. A bad bill is bad on its merits, not because of who has brought it about.

For those of us at home who need to decide which team to root for its very much relevant when and what bills a party sponsors.

their point was that both parties pass those laws. TPP and first-to-file passed under Obama.

it's so tiring.

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#126

Post by palmotea »

armchairhacker wrote: post #116
palmotea wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s ok, GPL’s entire purpose and only restriction is to prevent other copyrights. You sure about that? Because I'm pretty sure it's "entire purpose" is to keep open source code open. > And without copyright, studios would still pay artists, because that’s the only way art is created Hate to break it to you, but that's just not true. But you know what would make that true? Abolishing copyright.

"Prevent other copyrights" = "keep open source open" Your second point seems to agree: if copyright was abolished, people (even rich) still want art, so studios would still end up paying artists, from patronage or some other system.

> if copyright was abolished, people (even rich) still want art, so studios would still end up paying artists, from patronage or some other system.

Yes, it would be exclusively the domain of the rich and powerful. If you're a little guy, they'll just shamelessly take what you make, because abolishing copyright abolishes the legal protections a small-time creator depends on.

Let's say you put a ton of effort into making an awesome YouTube channel people love. Copyright is what means a bunch of randos can't just copy all your work and take all the revenue from it. They can even undercut you, because they don't actually have the costs of creating anything. Copyright give you recourse.

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#127

Post by OutOfHere »

palmotea wrote: post #126
armchairhacker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Prevent other copyrights" = "keep open source open" Your second point seems to agree: if copyright was abolished, people (even rich) still want art, so studios would still end up paying artists, from patronage or some other system.

> if copyright was abolished, people (even rich) still want art, so studios would still end up paying artists, from patronage or some other system. Yes, it would be exclusively the domain of the rich and powerful. If you're a little guy, they'll just shamelessly take what you make, because abolishing copyright abolishes the legal protections a small-time creator depends on. Let's say you put a ton of effort into maki…

YouTube has just so much garbage that drags on. It would be a good thing to have less of it.

Also, just because randos will copy content doesn't mean that users will go to other channels to view it if they subscribe to your channel.

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#128

Post by anigbrowl »

rayiner wrote: post #62
anigbrowl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No surprise that you'd show up to shill for it.Your argument boils down to 'if it looks like an executive branch agency, then the Executive branch should have control over it' rather than accepting that Congress is free to set things up as it sees fit within the Constitutional constraints.

"Shilling" would require me to care about the policy, which I don't. The genius of the founders is that they realized that structure and power allocation was more important than policy, so that's what I'm commenting about. On that point, Congress cannot "set things up as it sees fit." The constitution goes to great lengths to create a complex, three-branch system of government with specific powers allocated to each b…

I specifically said 'within the Constitutional constraints.' For some reason you chose to ignore that and then launch into a superfluous lecture on the Constitution. You are pounding the table, counselor.

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#129

Post by tgv »

OutOfHere wrote: post #123
tgv wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time someone uttered something similar, I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it to you: what entitles you to free access to any song, movie or book?

Your question is a loaded question founded on a false premise that the author of the content has an innate right to its viewership. There is no such innate right. Also, the argument that you made elsewhere about "damages" is nonsense because there is no damage from someone viewing what they were never going to pay for anyway, and there also is no deprivation.

> Your question is a loaded question

It is not. Abolishing copyright completely, as the parent seems to desire, implies free access to songs, books, movies.

> a false premise that the author of the content has an innate right to its viewership

If you pose it this way: can't creators decide who gets access to their creations? Is it not inherently theirs? What's the difference with e.g. a piece of bread?

> there is no damage ...

So it's legal to steal stuff that you were never going to buy anyway?

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#130

Post by tgv »

armchairhacker wrote: post #86
tgv wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time someone uttered something similar, I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it to you: what entitles you to free access to any song, movie or book?

Because it’s effectively free to copy. I want copyright to be completely abolished and patronage to re-become normal and common. Most of my favorite artists already distribute most of their work for free and rely on the latter.

> Most of my favorite artists already distribute most of their work for free

Excellent. It already works. You don't have to abolish copyright.

Post reply on HN