Live data from Hacker News

TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

vulture.com

201–210 of 212 posts

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is certainly not as clear-cut as you are making it out. It's not theft to "possess" Call of Duty if you never paid for it? Or, say I purchased a record of Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" back in 1977 or whenever. It is a copyrighted work that I paid for, as you stated. Now, can I go into Sam Goody in 1983 and just walk out with a cassette of the same album? In 1994 can I snag a CD off the shelf at Tower Records? T…

No, you don't possess the box set for free. You already have all the songs in the box set that you paid for, and therefore you already paid for the contents of the box set. You own the box set contents in entirety, just not that specific box set you would walk out with from the store. If you're confusing the medium with the actual work, consider the following. You own an original painting. Is it illegal to take a pic…

Doesn't seem to be much dispute that stealing a physical copy is in fact illegal, it's theft. I agree, you agree. Please show me where an exception has been made in any law that says, theft doesn't apply when the goods in question are digital. Digital goods are goods, they have value, they are sold, and they can be stolen/pirated/"borrowed"/whatever words make you feel better.

Do I think the actual likelihood of an individual being prosecuted or sued for downloading torrents is more than 0.000001%? I do not. But getting away with it is not the same as being in the clear.

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buying a legit copy doesn't make it legal to download a pirated/illegal copy, any more than buying a band's CD makes it legal to sneak into their concert without a ticket.

This isn't actually settled in US law, as far as I can tell: if you actually do own a legal copy and you download another copy, it's unclear that you've actually done anything illegal. IIRC this is the argument that Apple uses to de-duplicate copies of users' music libraries, sometimes to deleterious effect[1]. [1]: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/252932712

Do you have the authorization if the legal copyright holder? If so, great! But if you are downloading torrents from Pirate Bay, I'm going to assume you don't have such authorization.

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is certainly not as clear-cut as you are making it out. It's not theft to "possess" Call of Duty if you never paid for it? Or, say I purchased a record of Rolling Stones "Sticky Fingers" back in 1977 or whenever. It is a copyrighted work that I paid for, as you stated. Now, can I go into Sam Goody in 1983 and just walk out with a cassette of the same album? In 1994 can I snag a CD off the shelf at Tower Records? T…

>>It's not theft to "possess" Call of Duty if you never paid for it? From a US law it is not even theft to distribute it, it is infringement of copyright which is not theft. >Now, can I go into Sam Goody in 1983 and just walk out with a cassette of the same album? That is shoplifting of a physical product, very very different than replication of digital product if you were from the future with a Star Trek replicator…

> you were from the future with a Star Trek replicator an when in to Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette and made a perfect replica of it it would not be theft

This is certainly false, no need to speculate. There is presently an entire underground industry of fake Louis Vuitton handbags, and other luxury brands. The goods may be amazing replicas but the legality is clear... an unauthorized source simply cannot produce LV handbags at will, and knowingly purchasing one is not legal either.

Do I think there is any actual risk that an individual person would be prosecuted for buying one of these bags? As I said elsewhere, no. It still doesn't make it legal.

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d disagree that S2 is where the show went wrong. It holds up quite well on rewatch, with probably 3-4 of the best overall episodes. Ironically, I think Nolan & Joy made the same kind of mistake Dr. Ford criticizes in the premiere: They forgot why people wanted to watch Westworld . Fundamentally, the show was about the park, with all its mystery and detail. They seemed to think it was actually about the ideas around…

> the ideas around AI, consciousness & free will they wanted to explore I haven't seen S2, but with that description, and as an avid fan of the various incarnations of Ghost in the Shell, I want to see S2 to see how they explore those concepts.

It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.

What I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.

I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.

My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney;s business model for many years was to do just that, they would put popular titles "in the vault" only to re-release them a few years later it is proven economic model of false scarcity. Just like the McRib, McDs would never put it on the permanent menu because they sell more due to it "limited run" every year. I suspect these shows will be like that, they will be removed and readded periodically to boost subs…

The McRib has nothing to do with artificial scarcity. It’s availability is driven by pork prices.

McRib is in fact a good example. It’s marketed as “for a limited time only”, which is precisely artificial scarcity. That its availability is actually dependent on pork prices is kind of irrelevant. McD could bring it back in the future, or they may not, but if it is, it will be again be for a limited time only.

Importantly, it’s not marketed as being available at certain time of the year, rather its availability depends on McD marketing choices —- that’s what makes it an example of artificial scarcity and not a seasonal item.

Really no different to Disney having old releases in the “vault”, and selectively re-releasing them every so often at a time of their own choosing.

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#207
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there? How much music was lost when oink (and what.cd) was shut down? We will never know but I suspect quite a bit. It can get awfully hard to get hold of obscure records even if they did exist on physical media.

Thing is, the site was lost and this was a terrible thing, but the music exists on many disks across the planet!

If I were sure of that...

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It's not theft to "possess" Call of Duty if you never paid for it? From a US law it is not even theft to distribute it, it is infringement of copyright which is not theft. >Now, can I go into Sam Goody in 1983 and just walk out with a cassette of the same album? That is shoplifting of a physical product, very very different than replication of digital product if you were from the future with a Star Trek replicator…

> you were from the future with a Star Trek replicator an when in to Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette and made a perfect replica of it it would not be theft This is certainly false, no need to speculate. There is presently an entire underground industry of fake Louis Vuitton handbags, and other luxury brands. The goods may be amazing replicas but the legality is clear... an unauthorized source simply cannot produce LV…

Again the problem here is not the duplicate bag, it is the act of SELLING or DISTRIBUTING the bag

I can take material and make an exact replica of a Louis Vuitton handbag for my own personal use, however if I tried to SELL it as a Louis Vuitton handbag it would be fraud and trademark violation.

So in the case of the Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette I can take a star Trek replica for my own personal use, perfectly legal. I just could not SELL IT, or DISTRIBUTE IT

>> and knowingly purchasing one is not legal either.

I would love to see the statute on that, not saying your wrong but it would have to be a local law and I bet would not apply to the context of a digital download.

Edit:

Under US Federal law there is no prohibition on Knowingly buying counterfeit goods ( https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/buyin... )

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't possess the box set for free. You already have all the songs in the box set that you paid for, and therefore you already paid for the contents of the box set. You own the box set contents in entirety, just not that specific box set you would walk out with from the store. If you're confusing the medium with the actual work, consider the following. You own an original painting. Is it illegal to take a pic…

Doesn't seem to be much dispute that stealing a physical copy is in fact illegal, it's theft. I agree, you agree. Please show me where an exception has been made in any law that says, theft doesn't apply when the goods in question are digital. Digital goods are goods, they have value, they are sold, and they can be stolen/pirated/"borrowed"/whatever words make you feel better. Do I think the actual likelihood of an i…

There isn't an exception that I know of. What I'm saying is if you download a torrent for a movie that you own you can still get a copyright notice. That doesn't really make sense to me.

Re: TV disappears, but HBO Max removing shows feels different

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you were from the future with a Star Trek replicator an when in to Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette and made a perfect replica of it it would not be theft This is certainly false, no need to speculate. There is presently an entire underground industry of fake Louis Vuitton handbags, and other luxury brands. The goods may be amazing replicas but the legality is clear... an unauthorized source simply cannot produce LV…

Again the problem here is not the duplicate bag, it is the act of SELLING or DISTRIBUTING the bag I can take material and make an exact replica of a Louis Vuitton handbag for my own personal use, however if I tried to SELL it as a Louis Vuitton handbag it would be fraud and trademark violation. So in the case of the Sam Goody, Scanned the Cassette I can take a star Trek replica for my own personal use, perfectly lega…

That links to trafficking statutes. And it states, "it is not a crime under this act for an individual knowingly to purchase goods bearing counterfeit marks, if the purchase is for the individual's personal use." I emphasize under this act, since this act relates to trafficking. That doesn't say that it is not illegal under any other act or law. Customs and Border Patrol seems quite clear: "It is illegal to purchase counterfeit goods." Period. No ifs/ands/buts.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/fakegoodsrealdangers#:~:text=It%20....

Post reply on HN