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

SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

m.washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#21

Post by frank_boyd »

mercurial wrote: post #7
rayiner wrote: post #6

Absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights. If I trespass on someone's land, it's not a felony. If I build a hotel on someone's land, it's still not a felony. The redress for copyright violations should be civil lawsuits, not criminal prosecutions.

> There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights. There is one: lobbying.

Exactly. It really can't get any more obvious than that.

If we don't take money out of politics our country is going to go down for good.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#22

Post by rayiner »

frank_boyd wrote: post #21
mercurial wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no reason copyrights should be protected more strongly than traditional property rights. There is one: lobbying.

Exactly. It really can't get any more obvious than that. If we don't take money out of politics our country is going to go down for good.

You can blame the tech industry for this one. Criminalizing copyright infringement didn't get much traction until Microsoft, Oracle, etc, made a big deal about it in the context of large-scale piracy by the Chinese, etc.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#25

Post by snsr »

throwawaykf02 wrote: post #15

I haven't even read TFA but I can bet you this: the felons would be those uploading the streams, not those downloading. How do I know this? Because copyright law targets, and always has targeted, those distributing copyrighted material without license rather than those consuming it. One of the reasons is, as a comment elsewhere makes evident [1], it is not the responsibility of the consumer to know whether goods bein…

> the felons would be those uploading the streams, not those downloading

I don't think that's completely accurate. This effort would expose sites and services to secondary liability for the actions of their users.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#28

Post by jbooth »

hga wrote: post #18
alan_cx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't Americans have guns to protect property? I suppose in fairness Disney cant run out and wave a gun at people downloading cartoons. Yes, its disgustingly over the top, but then, what isn't these days?

No, actually. Outside of Texas, the exception that proves the rule, you are not allowed to use lethal force to protect property. As I understand Texas law (which I wouldn't surprise to find judicially nullified someday, like similar Oklahoma law), you are allowed to use lethal force on someone stealing your property after a verbal warning. Which is in no way analogous to the point you're making. US law very much does…

I'm pretty sure the castle doctrine applies in most states?

Hell, 'stand your ground' applies in a decent plurality of states these days.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#29

Post by hondje »

canadiancreed wrote: post #24

This guy seems to be trying his damnest to piss away what good will he had at replacing an administration that was derided for pretty much the same actions.

This is the time when politicians pay back their masters, before the next election gears up. This gives time between pissing people off and then having to convince them to vote for more of the same.

Re: SOPA died in 2012, but Obama administration wants to revive part of it

#30

Post by hga »

jbooth wrote: post #28
hga wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, actually. Outside of Texas, the exception that proves the rule, you are not allowed to use lethal force to protect property. As I understand Texas law (which I wouldn't surprise to find judicially nullified someday, like similar Oklahoma law), you are allowed to use lethal force on someone stealing your property after a verbal warning. Which is in no way analogous to the point you're making. US law very much does…

I'm pretty sure the castle doctrine applies in most states? Hell, 'stand your ground' applies in a decent plurality of states these days.

Weak Castle Doctrine, no duty to retreat in your home, exists in 46 states according to Wikipedia, which sounds about right. E.g. assume you have to retreat from your home in Massachusetts, no matter the current law, case law or circumstances.

Stand Your Ground in 22 states. As in no duty to retreat any place you have a right to be, which prevents second guessing from the calm and comfort of a courtroom. Or as Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in the 1921 US Supreme Court case Brown v. United States, "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."

Post reply on HN