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

Access denied

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 109 posts

Re: Access denied

#21

Post by CoffeeDregs »

praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for justification of piracy.

There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...

Re: Access denied

#22

Post by joshuahedlund »

simonsarris wrote: post #6

It saddens me a good deal that most of us can come up with very compelling arguments that un-restricting these works would benefit society, yet there seems there's very little we could do to make even a splash of change. In fact, I gander the comments here will soon be filled with of "here's how I would do it" comments, none of which will make a mote of a difference. What can we do, really? It seems insane that the r…

A lot has changed already since 1998. I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility that the current 2019 date could be allowed to lapse when it arrives, especially if we continue with raising awareness, lobbying/organizing efforts, trying to get notable/influential figures signing on to the cause, etc, for the next 6 years.

That would be a depressing "starting point" of progress, to be sure, but since it only requires inaction it might be more achievable than positive copyright reform that requires action, especially since everyone disagrees on the proper action to take.

Re: Access denied

#23

Post by netrus »

mcculley wrote: post #16

It's only tangentially related, but I had to make a comment: http://www.economist.com/comment/1835110#comment-1835110 I happily pay for my subscription to The Economist and enjoy reading it on my iPad. But they don't even allow you to select a single word in an article, which would make it possible to look things up in a dictionary. This kind of limitation to attempt enforcement of copyright is part of the whole prob…

I doubt that they do it to prevent copying. I can access every article from the newspaper on their website as nicely formated HTML.

Re: Access denied

#25

Post by joshuahedlund »

jarjoura wrote: post #19
njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

I'm sure an idea of a similar framework gets proposed all the time, however once stakeholders look at the huge cost in it, it gets tabled. An argument people make on Hollywood's side is that sure, there are entire storage facilities of content that should be moved into the public domain, but who is going to fund the conversion (old deteriorated 35mm film) to media usable by the mass public? Then on the public side, w…

> An argument people make on Hollywood's side is that sure, there are entire storage facilities of content that should be moved into the public domain, but who is going to fund the conversion (old deteriorated 35mm film) to media usable by the mass public?

I'm not familiar with this argument. My understanding is nothing has to be "funded" to be "moved" into the public domain, it just becomes public domain by default and if anyone wants to make the necessary conversions that's their voluntary prerogative (ex. Gutenberg Project). In fact I've read that public domain works are generally more likely to be preserved, and that there are loads of early 20th century works that are fading away because essentially no one is free to make copies of them to keep them around.

Re: Access denied

#26

Post by waterlesscloud »

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #20
martincmartin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

And trite sayings don't mean they are correct, either. The social contract in the constitution was to grant people with limited exclusivity for works they created. Patents have roughly stayed within that parameter (with exception to patent abuses on design and software). For copyright, it was originally 17 years, extendable another 17 years. Works released in 1981 (my date of birth) will expire in 120 years. I will b…

There's been plenty of input from the people. The people vote every 2 years for representatives and every 6 years for senators. By and large, the people's input has been to keep the congresspeople who voted for these extensions.

The reality is that most of "the people" just don't care about this issue. But they've had their input.

Re: Access denied

#27

Post by wpietri »

martincmartin wrote: post #15
praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

Absolutely. For example, Americans have come to realize that the wrong of British tyranny was not made right by the wrongs of rebellion and war.

Re: Access denied

#28

Post by mcculley »

netrus wrote: post #23
mcculley wrote: post #16

It's only tangentially related, but I had to make a comment: http://www.economist.com/comment/1835110#comment-1835110 I happily pay for my subscription to The Economist and enjoy reading it on my iPad. But they don't even allow you to select a single word in an article, which would make it possible to look things up in a dictionary. This kind of limitation to attempt enforcement of copyright is part of the whole prob…

I doubt that they do it to prevent copying. I can access every article from the newspaper on their website as nicely formated HTML.

You have to go out of your way when writing an iOS app to prevent selection/copy in text views. They had to at least think about it.

Re: Access denied

#29

Post by StavrosK »

CoffeeDregs wrote: post #21
praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

>To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument >for justification of piracy. There's very little pirating of content that is over 20 years old, so I'm not sure how the copyright extension thing would justify piracy...

People grant protection to works on the provision that these works become freely available after N years. The copyright industry just goes ahead and extends this unilaterally, just because they want to. Why should the public keep up its end of the deal when the copyright industry doesn't?

Re: Access denied

#30

Post by crpatino »

w1ntermute wrote: post #18
njl wrote: post #5

There are two competing interests here. First, Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. Second, the rest of the stuff that is of little commercial value but of potential cultural value should be freed from uncertain or uninterested ownership. The answer feels trivial to me, which means I'm probably missing something. Fixed term for a few decades…

> Disney wants to keep control of Mickey Mouse cartoons, and it doesn't feel unreasonable at all that they should. It feels completely unreasonable to me. There's no reason why Disney should be given an exception when others aren't. It's idiotic to suggest that they should get special treatment just because their IP is commercially valuable.

I don't think "Disney" is capable of wanting anything, since old Walt's been dead for decades now. That's what happens when you grant personhood status to abstract entities.
Post reply on HN