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

Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 369 posts

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#71

Post by pwg »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #45
xoa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I agree that any single fixed term makes sense. Rather, I think it'd be better if the exponential cost to society (in terms of works that don't happen, and works that don't happen based on those works that didn't happen and so on compounding) was just part of the yearly renewal price. Do maybe everyone gets 7 years flat to start with, then it costs $100*1.3^(year). So after another 25 years it'd be aroun…

How about something like IP as a tax? IE: if you make profit off of it, then it cranks up. There's plenty of music artists who's song blow up a decade or more later.

That's how you end up with "Hollywood accounting" where movies that gross over 100M dollars still show as a "loss" for tax purposes via creative accounting methods.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#72

Post by dionian »

joering2 wrote: post #69
achandlerwhite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

[flagged]

it would help if all cases of self defense were cataloged. Right now it only hits the stats if a crime is not averted.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#73

Post by vetrom »

joering2 wrote: post #69
achandlerwhite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

[flagged]

> where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime

I do not think this holds up to a factual analysis if you look at any cross section of defensive gun use reports. I don't think that parts actually relevant here though. If you were to use a similar standard as the USSC court applies here: Impressions don't matter to qualify for inducement. The action must be actively invited.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#76

Post by JCTheDenthog »

joering2 wrote: post #69
achandlerwhite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

[flagged]

Even the lowest estimates (the National Crime Victimization Survey) estimates annual defensive gun uses in the US at 60-80k per year. Highest estimates are at around 2 million.

But even then, most usage is at ranges, and far outstrips crime usage.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#77

Post by vetrom »

achandlerwhite wrote: post #68
scott_w wrote: post #66

Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable. Have I got that right?

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

There already is a specific law shielding gun manufacturers from liability from simple sales, which Democrat heavy states and locales do a lot of work to test the edges of and chip away at: the PLCAA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... which was passed in 2005 in light of mendacious lawsuits taking up a notable amount of courts' time.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#78

Post by johnnyanmac »

tencentshill wrote: post #74

This isn't good. They can still sue you, but now they need proof that you as an individual behind that public IP did it. This will only incentivize them to join the push for ID requirements.

They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees.

At worst, universities crack down harder on torrents, but that was always an option for labels.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#79

Post by ApolloFortyNine »

joering2 wrote: post #69
achandlerwhite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

[flagged]

There are around ~500 millions guns in the US according to a quick Google.

There's a lot of crime in the US, but I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime.

Also you can buy a gun and just shoot it at a range.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#80

Post by creantum »

vetrom wrote: post #73
joering2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime I do not think this holds up to a factual analysis if you look at any cross section of defensive gun use reports. I don't think that parts actually relevant here though. If you were to use a similar standard as the USSC court applies here: Impressions don't matter to qualify for inducement. The action must be actively invited.

Guns stolen = crime. Guns purchased = self defense.
Post reply on HN