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

21–30 of 369 posts

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

#21

Post by kmeisthax »

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 to honor 512 takedown notices now? Conversely, services dumb enough to actually market themselves as infringement tools probably can't get rid of their liability by the 512 safe harbor. So there's no reason to actually honor a DMCA takedown request anymore.

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

#23

Post by thmsths »

ronsor wrote: post #15
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.

The reason copyright doesn't get fixed or removed is largely because the general public is worried more about other things and the big rightsholders continue their monthly payments—err, lobbying. Though AI might change that. In the end, large corporations get what they want.

The general public also get sold on the rosy idea that copyright (and patents to a certain extent), protect the little guy, that thanks to this mechanism their work will not be stolen by opportunistic freeloaders. It also resonates with the "one day I will strike rich" mentality.

What they usually "forget" to tell you is that your IP is absolutely worthless if you don't have the resources to defend it in court, which in turns actually advantages freeloaders who either have relatively low costs to sue (patent trolls are basically an example of this) or enough money that they don't feel the pain if they lose.

The current system basically incentivizes suing over IP NOT creating it.

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

#24

Post by mannyv »

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

#25

Post by bushbaba »

Covzire wrote: post #17
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.

IANAL but it seems to have major implications beyond music piracy, like into the realm of ISPs and free speech in general, it seems the court (rightly) sees ISPs as a common carrier (like water pipes) and we may see more opinions of the kind that reach into the space of monopolies or duopolies in social media next.

Big tech should loose its safe harbor protection. It’s both an aggregator AND a curator. The algorithms showing you what to see is no different than a newspaper editor. Just like newspapers big tech should be liable for their “feeds” showing harmful and defamatory information

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

#26

Post by strogonoff »

It’s interesting to see how as soon as intellectual property theft starts to be critical for powerful interests the legal system magically gets more lenient about copyright enforcement.

The balance between public good and protecting IP ownership of the creatives (which is, paradoxically, also part of the public good) has to be struck and enforced consistently.

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

#28

Post by izacus »

mannyv wrote: post #24
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]

Because it sounds like a nice round reasonable number. Like many others in the law.

Now stop being a clown.

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

#29

Post by stavros »

mannyv wrote: post #24
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]

> If you made anything that was worth protecting you might feel differently.

How do you know they didn't? Oh, because of the No True Scotsman of "no person who truly made something worth protecting can have this opinion".

As if none of us have released anything under an MIT license. Ridiculous.

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

#30

Post by prepend »

strogonoff wrote: post #26

It’s interesting to see how as soon as intellectual property theft starts to be critical for powerful interests the legal system magically gets more lenient about copyright enforcement. The balance between public good and protecting IP ownership of the creatives (which is, paradoxically, also part of the public good) has to be struck and enforced consistently.

How is IP “theft” more important now than 20 years ago?
Post reply on HN