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

Access denied

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 109 posts

Re: Access denied

#91

Post by pfedor »

paganel wrote: post #65
MartinCron wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a good argument for justification of piracy Which, by the way, is indistinguishable from rationalizing the sentiment of "I want stuff without having to pay for it"

> "I want stuff without having to pay for it" I don't want to rationalize stuff, but I've just finished reading Locke's "Two Treatises on Government", one of the guys that started all this "the only true freedom is the protection of property"-thingie, and I just want to add that irrespective of the fact that one might agree or not with Locke's views you have to take into consideration that it has not always been like…

You could similarly defend any kind of stealing. The communists said "грабь награбленное", which means "steal what has been stolen". Here's the English-version of an article from The Great Soviet Encyclopedia: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Expropriation+of+... which advocates an equivalent of praptak's point of view applied to other kinds of property than the copyright.

Re: Access denied

#92

Post by MarkMc »

simonsarris wrote: post #6

It saddens me a good deal that most of us can come up with very compelling arguments that un-restricting these works would benefit society, yet there seems there's very little we could do to make even a splash of change. In fact, I gander the comments here will soon be filled with of "here's how I would do it" comments, none of which will make a mote of a difference. What can we do, really? It seems insane that the r…

I'm not convinced that un-restricting works would benefit society. If Disney gets to keep copyright on Snow White forever, about a third of the movie's profit will continue to be paid in tax.

So the choice is between (a) letting 7-year-olds everywhere watch Snow White, and (b) having more money to pay for roads, schools and cancer research. Is option (a) necessarily better?

Re: Access denied

#93

Post by MarkMc »

praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

Where do you draw the line?

"I am poor and rich people pay too little tax so it is ethically OK for me to steal from rich people"

"I am a native American and white people robbed my ancestors so it is ethically OK for me to steal from white people"

...etc

Re: Access denied

#94

Post by argv_empty »

OGinparadise wrote: post #53
officemonkey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't ownership of the file, it's the act of copying. If the Kindle owner made copies of Hemingway's works in the U.S., then he would get in trouble.

"The issue isn't ownership of the file, it's the act of copying." On top of my head I can't see how you own a book if others can copy and distribute it. For practical purposes, the point of owning is that you can control distribution, charge for it or, say, not allow someone to do a movie based on it.

When you say "own," do you mean "legitimately posess" or "hold copyright on"? I think GP is talking about the former.

Re: Access denied

#95

Post by OGinparadise »

darkarmani wrote: post #77
OGinparadise wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What you don't get is the additional right to prevent other people from using it or copying it until a government gives you that right." If you can copy my code /book or whatnot what rights do I have? Almost none. If there was no government, I could kill you for it to maybe scare others. > "This is artificial scarcity unlike property rights where ownership naturally deprives someone else of the property." Can I use…

> Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce. > If you can copy my code…

Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce.

You are not using your home anyway and I was gonna pay the wear and tear.

Better for the public good, hell, maybe I get some great ideas while I sit on Bill Gates' porch ;)

"Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it."

If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy (we can all agree to that.) If the government says that now I no longer have copyright, how aren't I deprived of something?

Some people leave homes, estates, gold coins, stocks, others leave books or songs. Roy Disney's family is a live and well, and so is Disney Inc, and to me it seems unfair to them to lose Mickey Mouse

Re: Access denied

#96

Post by OGinparadise »

argv_empty wrote: post #94
OGinparadise wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The issue isn't ownership of the file, it's the act of copying." On top of my head I can't see how you own a book if others can copy and distribute it. For practical purposes, the point of owning is that you can control distribution, charge for it or, say, not allow someone to do a movie based on it.

When you say "own," do you mean "legitimately posess" or "hold copyright on"? I think GP is talking about the former.

" When you say "own," do you mean "legitimately posess" or "hold copyright on"? I think GP is talking about the former."

Let's leave theories aside. I own a book when I decide when /how /where /if to print. If you can legally get it, modify and distribute it for free, I lose sales. That's almost certain. So if the government doesn't protect my book /song /movie the same way it protects your iPhone or vacation home, how do I own it?

(I understand what the law and constitution say, I just disagree, especially for certain works.)

Re: Access denied

#97

Post by darkarmani »

OGinparadise wrote: post #95
darkarmani wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can I use your house while you are away? On the nightstand, I'll leave $5 or whatever the wear and tear might be for the night. Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce. > If you can copy my code…

Ah, see?--"while i am away". Possession of tangible items deprives someone else the use of it. There is no such natural limitation on ideas or expression of ideas. It requires additional government "interference" before ideas and expression are made to be scarce. You are not using your home anyway and I was gonna pay the wear and tear. Better for the public good, hell, maybe I get some great ideas while I sit on Bill…

> If no one can legally copy my book (or my grandfather's book) I had a better chance of making money from it; if it's free fewer people will buy a copy (we can all agree to that.)

Of course. But if you want to base fairness on your chances to make money, just ask the government to force people to give you money instead of this convoluted IP situation.

> If the government says that now I no longer have copyright, how aren't I deprived of something?

I'm not sure how you can say you are deprived of something because they "only" gave you a 90 year copyright. It's like saying someone deprived you of money because they only gave you a million dollars not an infinite supply.

Re: Access denied

#98

Post by anigbrowl »

praptak wrote: post #8

To me the whole copyright extension issue is a good argument for justification of piracy. If the copyright industry side can just replace the social agreement (protection of works in exchange for them going public after a reasonable amount of time) with one they like more, why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same? I'm talking about the ethical side, not legalities. The fact that said consumers…

why would it be immoral for the content consumers to to the same?

Because they have nothing to lose. I only ever hear this argument from people who have no IP of their own in the market. I think shortened copyright terms would be good public policy, but the fact is that as a consumer you don't have any kind of moral claim on others' work.

Re: Access denied

#99

Post by nitrogen »

MartinCron wrote: post #84
jlgreco wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that so different from "I want to keep the rights to a cartoon I drew for ever and ever and ever.." ?

Of course it's not that different at all. Rationalizations happen on all sides. We're all guilty of them. I just think we should try to be honest with ourselves and each other.

"Let's be honest" is just code for "you should feel guilty."

Re: Access denied

#100

Post by nitrogen »

MarkMc wrote: post #92
simonsarris wrote: post #6

It saddens me a good deal that most of us can come up with very compelling arguments that un-restricting these works would benefit society, yet there seems there's very little we could do to make even a splash of change. In fact, I gander the comments here will soon be filled with of "here's how I would do it" comments, none of which will make a mote of a difference. What can we do, really? It seems insane that the r…

I'm not convinced that un-restricting works would benefit society. If Disney gets to keep copyright on Snow White forever, about a third of the movie's profit will continue to be paid in tax. So the choice is between (a) letting 7-year-olds everywhere watch Snow White, and (b) having more money to pay for roads, schools and cancer research. Is option (a) necessarily better?

If Disney gets to keep copyright on Snow White forever, about a third of the movie's profit will continue to be paid in tax.

Do you have any evidence to counteract the common wisdom that movies rarely actually make any money on paper?

So the choice is between (a) letting 7-year-olds everywhere watch Snow White, and (b) having more money to pay for roads, schools and cancer research. Is option (a) necessarily better?

Letting Disney sell Snow White doesn't magically create money from nothing. The money that isn't spent by consumers on Snow White will be spent on something else, which will eventually be taxed, funding roads, schools, and cancer research.

Post reply on HN