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

251–259 of 259 posts

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

#251

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #247
matheusmoreira wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Copyrigh…

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

Okay. Selling copies makes no sense anyway. So let people share their files in peace. No profit will be made.

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

My country has similar laws. Does it matter to the monopolists? No. They put DRM in their stuff specifically to stop you from exercising your legal right to copy. I remember one case where one guy backed up a game disc, lost the original and had to sue the company because the game wouldn't accept his copy. Judge made them give him a new disc. Fair use? Doesn't matter to the monopolists either. They'll DMCA content and sue companies out of existence whether they're legally justified or not.

Besides, the copyright monopolists are always trying to destroy these laws. They have considerable lobbying power and the US government imposes american laws on foreign countries via trade agreements.

> Could a reform be in order?

You can certainly make copyright tolerable. Make terms last 5-10 years. More than enough time for creators to make their millions. Anything more than that is rent seeking.

> Because when you say "abolish copyright", that means no more games or movies as we know them today.

Fine. Between computing freedom and the whole copyright industry, I choose computing freedom. Computing is much more important than some entertainment industry and I hate the way its potential is being limited because of these monopolists.

Stallman would probably disagree with me. Free software licenses depend on copyright to work.

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

#252

Post by matheusmoreira »

knorker wrote: post #245
matheusmoreira wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That's not what "legal" means.

Law is paper. What makes it real is police enforcement, prosecution. If this real stuff is not happening, there is no law.

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

#253

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #250
knorker wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you litter on a street I'm not on, then it doesn't affect me.

If nobody will ever get paid for intellectual property again, then it will absolutely affect me. It's the end of a whole category of creation, and a huge net reduction.

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

#254

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #251
knorker wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Copyrigh…

> But it's not legal to sell copies. Or to put the music in a "holywood" movie you made and make a profit. Okay. Selling copies makes no sense anyway. So let people share their files in peace. No profit will be made. > There are countries (e.g. Sweden) where it's legal to rip a CD and give a copy to your friends. "Always" has been. My country has similar laws. Does it matter to the monopolists? No. They put DRM in th…

> So let people share their files in peace. No profit will be made.

This is so naive and ignorant. Some people will maintain the huge libraries of movies. And it won't be free to do so.

They will do this service for pay.

This happens today, with pirate topsites and even closed torrents.

> Make terms last 5-10 years.

I'd say 10-20, but no more than that.

> Between computing freedom and the whole copyright industry, I choose computing freedom.

Good thing we don't have to make that choice.

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

#255

Post by knorker »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #252
knorker wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That's not what "legal" means. Law is paper. What makes it real is police enforcement, prosecution. If this real stuff is not happening, there is no law.

So now you agree that "ownership" is not inherently real?

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

#256

Post by jonny_eh »

lbschenkel wrote: post #240
jonny_eh wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since films are shot at 24fps, how were they converted to 25?

> Since films are shot at 24fps, how were they converted to 25? Sped up by 4% to make them 25fps. The audio is supposed to be pitch-corrected, but some poorly done conversions did not do that.

Does that mean one of the frames is duplicated every second?

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

#257

Post by AnssiH »

jonny_eh wrote: post #256
lbschenkel wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since films are shot at 24fps, how were they converted to 25? Sped up by 4% to make them 25fps. The audio is supposed to be pitch-corrected, but some poorly done conversions did not do that.

Does that mean one of the frames is duplicated every second?

No. If you increase the speed of 24 fps video 4%, it becomes 25 fps. Frame count does not change, frames are just shorter.

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

#258

Post by exporectomy »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #248
exporectomy wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 artificia…

Have you somehow modelled how the global economy would change if copyright was 10 years and fiat currency didn't exist and people used gold instead? Without that, you're living in fantasy land. You can make any idea seem better if you just make up the consequences in a way that favors your idea.

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

#259

Post by lbschenkel »

AnssiH wrote: post #257
jonny_eh wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean one of the frames is duplicated every second?

No. If you increase the speed of 24 fps video 4%, it becomes 25 fps. Frame count does not change, frames are just shorter.

Yes. Imagine that you had a fast-forward button that changed the time per frame from 41.7ms to 40ms. This is what a cinema-to-PAL conversion does.

It's a bit weird in the sense that everything is sped up and faster than normal. In the other hand, it's super simple and does not introduce the even weirder judder that a cinema-to-NTSC (telecine) conversion would do.

Personally I think it's easier to get used to everything being slightly faster but unmodified otherwise than to having additional frames being inserted and the resulting judder in all motion.

Post reply on HN