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

Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 130 posts

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#81

Post by matheusmoreira »

doh wrote: post #77
matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Just because something is easy to copy doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Creators should be paid for their work no matter how simple is to copy. If they are the first one who created it and someone else benefits, then they deserve to be compensated. My best solution would be something along these lines https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535

> That's a bit harsh, don't you think?

No.

Given the chance, these people would turn all the computers we use and love into locked-down content consumption machines. I think it is safe to assume this agenda is against the interests of everyone on hacker news. In fact, if copyright holders got their way, it would be impossible to be a hacker.

The only way to stop copyright infringement is to destroy computing as we know it. That is their end game. They want to take control of the user's computer and actively prevent them from doing things they don't like. This battle for copyright is similar to the battle against encryption: corporations and governments don't want you to have any control because it allows you to subvert them.

> Just because something is easy to copy doesn't mean it doesn't have value.

I didn't say it had no value. I said it wasn't scarce.

> Creators should be paid for their work no matter how simple is to copy. > If they are the first one who created it and someone else benefits, then they deserve to be compensated.

Then, for all our sakes, I hope they can figure out how to get paid regardless of how many copies are out there.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#82

Post by spacehome »

andybak wrote: post #62
openbasic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good reputation for what? Government interference in the free web? GDPR was just the first step. Open your eyes.

Ah, that peculiarly American sentiment where the word "government" is always followed by "interference" and never by "protection" or similar.

We all have our own strengths and weaknesses.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#84

Post by rahimnathwani »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75
doh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

"> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it?

Nobody disagrees with that."

From your post above and your clarification below, it seems like you believe:

1. People that produce content should be paid for it.

2. The burden is on content producers to find a way to get paid and, if they don't find one, then so be it.

Those are both reasonable positions, but I don't understand how you can hold both at the same time, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'should' in the first statement. Do you mean:

A) 'Should', as in 'this is the outcome we (society) want, and so we are willing to use the resources at our disposal (e.g. the legal system) to make it so, if it doesn't happen on its own', OR

B) "I hope they'll get paid", OR

C) 'I expect they'll get paid', OR

D) Something else?

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#85

Post by FooBarWidget »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75
doh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

What is wrong with artificial rights? Aren’t a lot of rights already artificial? You can also argue that property rights are artificial: if someone points a tank at you then you will have to give up all your property, so property right pretends like that isn’t reality and is dishonest. But I’d say it is a good thing that people aren’t allowed to point a tank at me.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#86

Post by bahamut1928 »

qubax wrote: post #32

What's with all the comments supporting censorship all of sudden? Every social media site now has hordes of "people" defending censorship. Is it just more european users on social media now? Or is it just government funded trolling? I just don't get it. Saudi arabia just declared online satire as a cybercrime punishable up to 5 years in prison. https://www.france24.com/en/20180904-saudi-arabia-declares-o... We know h…

Please understand that for many of us in the EU, freedom of speech as understood and implemented by Americans is not something desirable.

Based solely on my personal experience, most of the people are actually happy on how censorship is handled by our institutions. I've never felt restricted in expressing my opinion in whichever topic we are discussing, and I am actually happy that people preaching racist ideologies (that have cost us a lot in the past) find some obstacles in their way.

I personally don't consider your freedom of speech as inherently superior or the obvious step into progress. As many things in life, it has its pros and cons. Would you deem as "progress" all those echo chambers on the internet where people find support for ideologies that have cost millions of lives in the past?

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#87

Post by balp »

doh wrote: post #56
CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should there be “balancing”? The entire premise of copiright is just wrong to begin with. Here we have this perfectly anti-rival public good produced. But of course anti-rival just doesn’t work that well with free market economics, you know with the externalities and all. And since we just can’t imagine any other form of work allocation schemes than the free market, what to do?! Naturally the most obvious thing,…

I'm sorry but I don't think I follow. You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? I do believe that correct attribution and fair compensation is vital to get quality content. These proposals are not the answer though.

Amanda Palmer, does ahve a big point in her reformulating of the Question.

It's not how do we make people pay for it, how do we let people pay for it.

People want to pay for content, the current systems don't let people pay for it.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#88

Post by balp »

mike22223333 wrote: post #12
fasafsafsf wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they already have such systems via bots, but they don't block or undo things automatically because I assume it's hard to know programmatically the licence of things that are posted on the Internet.

It it is hard, that they should not run wikipedia.

Kinda hard like the lawers are still after years trying to figure out the issue between Oracle and Google, Apple and Samsung... It's a really hard legal issue, expecting it to be easy for a computer to solve. It's naive.

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#89

Post by intended »

doh wrote: post #77
matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You disagree with the notion, that people that produce content should be paid for it? Nobody disagrees with that. The fact is copyright exists to create artificial scarcity. "Content", once produced, is not scarce in any way; that's why the scarcity is artificial. These laws exist to force everybody to pretend that isn't how things work. It's fundamentally dishonest. It is trivial to copy and distribute "content".…

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Just because something is easy to copy doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Creators should be paid for their work no matter how simple is to copy. If they are the first one who created it and someone else benefits, then they deserve to be compensated. My best solution would be something along these lines https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535

It’s not harsh. Although I disagree with his solution- we need copy right, but copy-rights have been terrible for us.

However - Have people (on HN) forgotten how the content companies enforce copy right ? The RiAa/MPAA?

Copy rights were to help creators earn return on their creation. Today copy rights extend far beyond the natural life of the creator and are constantly being extended to favor corporations/owners, at the expense of the commons.

The lotr will never enter the public domain. And Disney is one of the greatest problems in this field. (And now they own Fox!)

Packet sniffing was created for the *AAs. Massive invasions of privacy and the initial subversion of the internet traces to their doorstep.

Copy right was one of the first fights of the collective group of people who landed up on /. And HN

Re: Wikimedia warns EU copyright reform threatens the ‘vibrant free web’

#90

Post by pendenthistory »

intended wrote: post #89
doh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit harsh, don't you think? Just because something is easy to copy doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Creators should be paid for their work no matter how simple is to copy. If they are the first one who created it and someone else benefits, then they deserve to be compensated. My best solution would be something along these lines https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17913535

It’s not harsh. Although I disagree with his solution- we need copy right, but copy-rights have been terrible for us. However - Have people (on HN) forgotten how the content companies enforce copy right ? The RiAa/MPAA? Copy rights were to help creators earn return on their creation. Today copy rights extend far beyond the natural life of the creator and are constantly being extended to favor corporations/owners, at…

>Copy rights were to help creators earn return on their creation. Today copy rights extend far beyond the natural life of the creator and are constantly being extended to favor corporations/owners, at the expense of the commons.

Just playing devils advocate: if most copyright nowadays belong to corporations, and corporations are immortal entities, perhaps eternal copyright makes sense? Not saying that's a good thing.

Post reply on HN