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

YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

improbable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 259 posts

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#241

Post by exporectomy »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #239
exporectomy wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's artificial scarcity doesn't mean it's not useful. Money also has artificial scarcity and that's a pretty good invention. My point is that copyright is to incentivize authors to produce work but if it's limited by the author's lifetime, then older people will be incentivized less than younger people because they won't be able to sell the rights for as much money because they'll expire sooner. We don'…

My point is copyright duration should never have grown beyond 5-10 years to begin with. I'm not saying copyright should expire if the person dies. > Money also has artificial scarcity I don't understand. Why do you think that?

You can create your own notes and coins but it's illegal because they want to maintain the artificial scarcity. The whole idea of fiat currency depends on people trusting that artificial scarcity will be maintained by the government.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#242

Post by [deleted] »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #239
exporectomy wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's artificial scarcity doesn't mean it's not useful. Money also has artificial scarcity and that's a pretty good invention. My point is that copyright is to incentivize authors to produce work but if it's limited by the author's lifetime, then older people will be incentivized less than younger people because they won't be able to sell the rights for as much money because they'll expire sooner. We don'…

My point is copyright duration should never have grown beyond 5-10 years to begin with. I'm not saying copyright should expire if the person dies. > Money also has artificial scarcity I don't understand. Why do you think that?

[deleted]

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#243

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #234
knorker wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of your examples are real things. They exist in the physical world. Naturally finite, tangible. "Ownership" isn't physical. > It makes intuitive sense to most people. This is just pleading to the anonymous crowd of an imagined silent majority who agree with you. Ask a majority if they think it should be legal to open a store selling bootleg copies of Britney Spears CDs, videogames, and whatever else they want t…

> "Ownership" isn't physical. Land is. > This is just pleading to the anonymous crowd of an imagined silent majority who agree with you. What? I'm saying that most people intuitively agree with you when it comes to ownership of physical things. I don't see what the issue is. > So you think it's not real? Go ahead. Try it then. Have you ever been to a developing country? There's an entire block filled with stores just…

>> "Ownership" isn't physical.

> Land is.

But ownership isn't. How are you not getting this?

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#244

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #235
knorker wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so littering should be legal, too? Running a red light? And yellow light?

No?

So... ?

It's easy to litter, and by FAR most people get away with it.

It's easy to infringe copyright, and by FAR most people get away with it.

Yet you feel this is justification to remove copyright laws, but not littering laws.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#245

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #236
knorker wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So copyright is enforceable because you can theoretically sue everyone? There aren't enough courts. This applies to every single crime. Try getting the police or courts to do anything about your stolen bike. They won't. You can have the name of the thief, with video of them stealing it, and it won't be worth their time. Also won't be worth your time and money to sue them civilly. So theft should be legal?

> This applies to every single crime. Not really. Crimes are limited by reality. One criminal can only do so much. With copyright infringement you have insane situations such as over 80% of a country's population being guilty of it. At this point, is it even a crime? More like a local custom. > Try getting the police or courts to do anything about your stolen bike. They won't. Maybe in the US. It's rather common here…

> Maybe in the US.

Not just the US. In fact I'm not in the US.

>> So theft should be legal.

> From what you just told me, it looks like it already is.

That's not what "legal" means.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#246

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #237
knorker wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it's not hard to stab someone, or to shoplift. Or run a red light. Why keep doing it? Because they made a thing, and they want to make money selling it. Pretty obvious, no?

Didn't you just say they'd be totally fine suing everyone?

Only if the law is on their side.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#247

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #238
knorker wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. No it didn't. More, yes. But 40 years ago you just needed two VCRs and a blank tape. The only thing preventing mass reproduction was copyright law. And pre-copyright this is also what happened. Because it was just not that hard. Even 500 years ago. > I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copyi…

> It's your argument. The actual argument is that society has fundamentally changed after the invention of computers. People copy, transfer and even modify copyrighted works every day without even blinking. It happens on an even larger scale than and at a fraction of the cost of VHS tape copying. Copyright no longer makes sense in the 21st century: it's become natural to infringe. The fact that copyright no longer gu…

This is showing an extreme ignorance of history, and of copyright.

There are countries (e.g. Sweden) where it's legal to rip a CD and give a copy to your friends. "Always" has been.

But it's not legal to sell copies. Or to put the music in a "holywood" movie you made and make a profit.

Copyright protects both of these. And if you think holywood movies don't properly license their music then you are mistaken.

Copyright absolutely makes sense.

Could a reform be in order? Well, could you come up with a laws or precedents where me putting a funny meme picture on my facebook wall is legally fine, but holywood taking my art and selling it as part of their product is not?

Because when you say "abolish copyright", that means no more games or movies as we know them today. You may say "good riddance", but you don't have to watch them. You can choose to only listen to music and see movies made under creative commons license. But you'll be pretty alone in that. Your life will look like that of Richard Stallman.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#248

Post by matheusmoreira »

exporectomy wrote: post #241
matheusmoreira wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is copyright duration should never have grown beyond 5-10 years to begin with. I'm not saying copyright should expire if the person dies. > Money also has artificial scarcity I don't understand. Why do you think that?

You can create your own notes and coins but it's illegal because they want to maintain the artificial scarcity. The whole idea of fiat currency depends on people trusting that artificial scarcity will be maintained by the government.

Yeah, government currency does have those problems. I'm not sure I'd even classify it as real money to begin with, it's just a scheme governments impose on their populations. Real money is precious metals: naturally scarce, malleable, fungible, divisible, universally recognized as valuable. A very small set of cryptocurrencies also have a shot at becoming real money one day.

I don't think this can be called artificial scarcity though. It's real scarcity that's gradually inflated away by governments and banks. Data is already infinitely abundant as soon as it's created.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#249

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #243
matheusmoreira wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Ownership" isn't physical. Land is. > This is just pleading to the anonymous crowd of an imagined silent majority who agree with you. What? I'm saying that most people intuitively agree with you when it comes to ownership of physical things. I don't see what the issue is. > So you think it's not real? Go ahead. Try it then. Have you ever been to a developing country? There's an entire block filled with stores just…

>> "Ownership" isn't physical. > Land is. But ownership isn't. How are you not getting this?

Land ownership is physical too. Apply a little violence and your land is gone. Villages can be raided. Countries can be invaded. Organized drug traffickers can literally take over entire cities.

You need to be there and defend your land if you want to keep it. The fact that in civilized society people have transferred this responsibility to governments doesn't make it any less physical.

Re: YouTube takes down the Ig Nobel show because of a 1914 recording

#250

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #244
matheusmoreira wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No?

So... ? It's easy to litter, and by FAR most people get away with it. It's easy to infringe copyright, and by FAR most people get away with it. Yet you feel this is justification to remove copyright laws, but not littering laws.

Littering and running red lights causes problems for everyone in society. Copyright infringement... doesn't. It's mostly just a small dip in the expected profits of a monopolist.
Post reply on HN