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

Schroedinger's streaming service just died

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#71

Post by [deleted] »

ww520 wrote: post #62
Waterluvian wrote: post #46

“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.

We need to have a national proposition system that let citizens put forth legislative bills into the ballots, to let the citizens vote on the strongly concerned matters. When Congress obviously is not doing their jobs, the citizens should have a way to pick up the slack. It's a better way to check and balance the sellout of the legislative branch to the lobbyists.

[deleted]

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

clucas wrote: post #68
feet wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our system was literally designed to prevent citizens from having any say. See the supreme court and the reasons Alexander Hamilton said it was needed

"Prevent us from having any say"?? Legislators are directly elected, president is elected somewhat indirectly but largely by popular vote, administrative rule making has notice and comment process, Article 3 judges are appointed by President and confirmed by legislature... everything derived from the will of the people. It sounds like you are upset that more people aren't as upset at the same things you are. That's n…

Much of what you describe is an evolution from the original design.

https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-...

> At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Madison expressed the prevailing view that “the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty,” meaning only people who owned land debt-free, without mortgages, would be able to vote. The Constitution left voting rules to individual states, which had long-standing laws limiting the vote to those freeholders.

> In the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, Madison trumpeted a benefit of the new system: the “total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity.” Even as the nation shifted toward broader inclusion in politics, Madison maintained his view that rights were fragile and ordinary people untrustworthy. In his 70s, he opposed the expansion of the franchise to nonlanded citizens when it was considered at Virginia’s Constitutional Convention in 1829, emphasizing that “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the Minority.”

There's a reason the Constitution, as originally written, doesn't actually guarantee anyone the right to vote. Even today, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to, say, ban redheads or people born on Tuesday from voting.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#73

Post by sailfast »

Waterluvian wrote: post #46

“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.

Folks still need to get re-elected, even if it's heavily favoring lobbyists. That is still SOMETHING, rather than a company creating something out of thin air. In this the OP is correct. It's not a lie, and your vote counts.

For what it's worth, it's not so much lobbyists as the ability to generate dollars period (many lobbyists aren't actually very good at this), and there's still power there in numbers as seen in recent elections so don't sell yourself short if you have a compelling case to make. Just sayin'! :)

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#74

Post by sailfast »

zdragnar wrote: post #49
Waterluvian wrote: post #46

“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.

Congress doesn't even bother reading the bills they pass. Most of the actual details are deferred to the administrative bureaucracy. That's where the real power is.

It's a nice fantasy, but it's simply not the case in my experience. The details are deferred because you want to be able to adapt some things faster than you can change a law and you want it done with a comment period by subject matter experts, rather than by legislators.

In general, however, those agencies are slow moving (requires comment period, must decide given bounds, funding limited, etc) and pretty narrowly handcuffed / acting within the statute. Recently even those narrow powers have been rejected by the courts (see admin law judges, CFPB single director, etc).

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#75

Post by sailfast »

bitexploder wrote: post #55
zdragnar wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress doesn't even bother reading the bills they pass. Most of the actual details are deferred to the administrative bureaucracy. That's where the real power is.

The deep state is a real thing. I don’t think it has to be explicitly negative, but there are a lot of unelected bureaucrats that hold a lot of power with minimal accountability and visibility.

Such as? Not trying to be pedantic, just looking for a more specific example. Are you talking about political appointees or public servants? If so, where? What agencies?

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#76

Post by sailfast »

feet wrote: post #58
vajrabum wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about Government employees or lobbyists? BTW, notice that their power is circumscribed by the law. When that changes their powers change.

Lmao what? They write the laws! Think tanks are literally paid to draft legislation

Think tanks are not the government. They are private institutions.

Typically when one uses the term "deep state" you mean someone working in the government that has their own agenda and/or are acting on a specific conspiracy / cabal agenda counter to the direction of, say, the administration providing the guidance and direction. This is why the person asked about employees vs. lobbyists.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#77

Post by sailfast »

TIL Record Labels were double dealing the license vs. purchase royalties. That's really sad, and I'm glad somebody finally made some case law out of this that will benefit artists moving forward.

EDIT: I forgot it was settled out of court so it's not "case law" but definitely tells record labels that they will probably lose in the future. They must owe billions...

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#78

Post by LocalH »

Closi wrote: post #34
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books). It's not a license because it cannot be revoked by whoever sold it to you.

> It's not a license. It's a purchase of an item that becomes your own possession, and a law that covers what you can do as far as resale (also applies to books). So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world? And if I have it but am not allowed to listen to it, what is that lack of playing-permission called if not 'not owning a license'? > It's not a license because it…

> So once I sell it, if it's still on my hard-drive am I allowed to listen to it in your world?

The same is possible with physical media. Analog media can be duplicated with varying levels of loss, digital media can be duplicated with no loss, and then the original item resold. Why must digital files be treated significantly differently, and suddenly DRM is required to even allow legitimate resale?

If copyright owners had their way, they’d automatically get a blanket license to everyone’s content, while giving the individual person zero rights. The historical behavior of the industry (all the way back to Thomas Edison) indicates that this would be the case.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#79

Post by timando »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #69

Could I sell my bandcamp account? The irony of this is that bandcamp seems to be a far more direct-to-the-artist model than any streaming service (which is why I use it), because it (it's hard to avoid puns here) records which albums I've purchased so that I can listen to them via the app / website or download lossless copies of said albums for my own curated library and to be able to listen to offline. This, however…

The terms of service might not let you sell it, but I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to change the email address and password on the account and give the login details to someone else in exchange for some money.

Re: Schroedinger's streaming service just died

#80

Post by raverbashing »

Waterluvian wrote: post #46

“but at least it's a law, created by a democratically accountable legislature.” I feel like we need to stop lying to ourselves like this. Copyright is getting ridiculously out of hand because lobbyists hold the power and the system is not really accountable anymore.

"Easy" solution: have the people who got rich with alternative platforms lobby as well
Post reply on HN