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

141–150 of 369 posts

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

#141

Post by purpleflame1257 »

jetrink wrote: post #129

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…

They were right. I never sold a taped VCR, but my parents used it to time shift Saturday morning cartoons every week.

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

#142

Post by joering2 »

kube-system wrote: post #102
joering2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Because intent isn't something that you can acquire from the actions of third parties Second, the VAST majority of guns in the US sit in gun safes and closets and never shoot anyone. Finally, shooting someone is not necessarily an illegal action -- gun manufacturers market their products for self defense or sporting reasons -- I have never seen one market their products for use in criminal acts.

Well, I have never seen Cox advertising their internet cable as a way to download pirated movies, but here we are.

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

#143

Post by [deleted] »

kube-system wrote: post #112
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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#144

Post by joering2 »

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #76
joering2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Even the lowest estimates (the National Crime Victimization Survey) estimates annual defensive gun uses in the US at 60-80k per year. Highest estimates are at around 2 million. But even then, most usage is at ranges, and far outstrips crime usage.

I don't think it matters in the light of this ruling. Cox could have argued that 99.9% of their data packets are Netflix and downloads of free Linux ISOs, yet neither court nor the ruling cares.

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

#145

Post by joering2 »

dwedge wrote: post #115
joering2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

Absolutely. I would also agree that 99% of data delivered by Cox is not pirated movies.

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

#146

Post by MattGrommes »

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.

In a world where copyright only lasts 10 years, what happens to the musician whose song from 20 years ago is used in a movie and becomes super popular? Do they get royalties or are there no royalties involved?

I want a system that doesn't syphon money to the corporations over the individual creator and the corporations can't tell me I can't use the song.

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

#148

Post by ryandrake »

autoexec wrote: post #131
awesome_dude wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Another thing that doesn't get brought up enough: Copyright is not really needed to encourage creation.

Suppose Copyright as a concept was overturned and no longer existed. Would Disney just say "Well, it was a great run, but we're going to close up shop and no longer create works." Would an independent artist who needs to paint something decide not to just because it couldn't be copyright?

"The creation of new works" doesn't need to be encouraged. It's the default. Cavemen still carved on cave walls without copyright.

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

#149

Post by Barbing »

xoa wrote: post #31
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'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…

Both creative and intriguing ideas, I like it!

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

#150

Post by frenchtoast8 »

jetrink wrote: post #129

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…

> 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.”

I don't know anyone who sold television recordings, it was always for personal use. How could the lower court get this so wrong? Was this just one uninformed judge? Or was this actually less certain at the time?

Post reply on HN