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

131–140 of 369 posts

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

#131

Post by autoexec »

awesome_dude wrote: post #124
autoexec wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

That's entirely irrelevant though. The point of copyright isn't to protect income. The point is to encourage the creation of new works. Disney doesn't need 100+ years of exclusive profits on something to encourage them to create new works. Nobody does.

I'd even argue that the more popular a work is the more important it is that it enter the public domain sooner rather than later. The less cultural relevancy something has when it enters the public domain the less likely it will inspire new works to be created.

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

#133

Post by jonathanstrange »

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.

I think it should be for a lifetime of the original author and non-transferable. The system is already rigged very much against artists, it's amazing how many people still contribute to culture under the given conditions. I don't see any reason why someone who writes a Christmas song or a novel shouldn't have a possibility to get payments for their works until they die, for example. However, I have a lot of problems with the bizarre extensions that companies and heirs have gotten for work they haven't created on their own.

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

#134

Post by aksss »

socalgal2 wrote: post #113
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.

Let's not forget sports, which is a huge segment of the gun-owning public - trap, skeet, biathlon, PRS, USPSA/IPSC, High Power/CMP, etc.

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

#135

Post by JeremyNT »

ImJamal wrote: post #119
indolering wrote: post #52

[flagged]

9-0 rulings happen all the time. I couldn't find an easy to consume list so I asked AI to provide the percentage and it said 65–75% of rulings in a term are 9-0.

I believe it's the second half of parent's comment that is doing the heavy lifting.

A 9-0 ruling written by Clarence Thomas which puts basic human rights (internet access) above civil liability - try asking a chatbot to find many of those.

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

#137

Post by nekusar »

megaman821 wrote: post #128
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.

I was expecting that as a response.

There is no reason why tax has to be done as property tax. Property tax demeans actual ownership of a place for us to live. (And why the hell do corporations get away with no tax on intellectual property, or even pay on profits, whereas we humans pay on revenue and property?)

Worse yet, property taxes also enshrine the idea that the community's schools in poor areas deserve poor education. Do children in poor areas deserve poor education? Cause that's how you end up with "great and slum schools".

And the police in my area? Its sheriffs. And meh. I dont want them to keep getting military playthings.

Street? That's what gas tax and EV tax is for. And those built in with gas tax funds per gallon, aka use tax. Or vehicle registration tax.

Fire fighters? We have volunteer fire fighters.

I'm seeing a whole lot of tax and tax and tax, and shit for return on this forced investment. And property tax HAS had people end up homeless. 1 family homeless due to property tax is 1 too many.

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

#138

Post by elpool2 »

elpool2 wrote: post #44
kmeisthax wrote: post #21

So... does that mean we don't have to care about takedown notices anymore? Like, the only reason to comply with such an onerous and censorious takedown regime was specifically to disclaim contributory copyright liability that SCOTUS just unanimously decided to erase. Is it such that as long as people aren't stupid and don't market their services as an infringement facilitator, which most don't, that they don't have t…

It seems like you would still have to remove the infringing content , but no need to disconnect or ban the user who shared it. But if you’re a pure ISP and not hosting content on your own servers, then I guess, yeah DMCA doesn’t really apply to you?

Actually, it looks like there is something in the law that only provides DMCA safe harbor to providers that have a policy of terminating accounts of repeat infringers. I'm still not sure if an ISP would even need that safe harbor though.

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

#139

Post by maxwg »

> Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts

Imagine giving the power to rightsholders to terminate anyone's internet service with e.g, a DMCA takedown. I'm sure that won't be abused at all, and is a very necessary step to protecting "artists"

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

#140

Post by MadnessASAP »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #125
MadnessASAP wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They didn't exactly intimidate them down last time either. Piracy decisively won the war on piracy.
Post reply on HN