Hacker News Reader

Comment by Confusion | Hacker News Reader

  I have the right to render your bits and bytes however I wish.

No you don't. Just because something is technically possible, even easy, does not mean you are entitled to do so.

Some bytes you are not allowed to render them at all (and BTW, how did you get them?).

Some bytes may not be transformed into other bytes so you are able to render them (and BTW, how did you obtain the key?).

Some bytes may not be rendered in front of audiences, only for personal use.

In general: those bytes come with a copyright and a license agreement. They are my arrangement of bytes. I could easily include an explicit HTTP header saying that you may only render these bytes with unmodified browser brand X version Y.Z (or brand A version B, or ...). That that is currently unwritten in the HTTP response does not make it a non-existent agreement.

If you do something else, you violate my copyright over that arrangement of bytes.

View on HN

This gets onto very shaky ground. What if I'm in a console and only browse with w3m or lynx? What if I simply disable all Images and Javascript (older web browsers made disabling images really simple; back when we had very limited dial-up bandwidth).

Can websites dictate what web browsers you use? Are you violating an agreement by using a different User-Agent?

No, no and no. You are requesting data and your browser renders it. If you write your own browser to request and render the data differently, I don't see any issue with copyright.

  No, no and no.

You have given no arguments to support these claims. You are just repeating the idea that you can do with those bytes what you want, when I just gave several examples of cases in which you can not do with those bytes what you want.

I'll make it explicit. You can't show a Netflix show to an audience (let alone a paying audience). You may not render an e-book that you haven't bought. You may not even store that sequence bytes on a device you own. You may not decrypt an encrypted file not intended for you.

What you are saying does never apply when using content for personal use. When I buy a DVD I am allowed to watch it with a filter or watch only every second frame. This would never violate your copyright.

Architects are a well known example of artists that keep a say over their products after they have been produced and 'sold'. You can't just modify 'your' building: the original artist has to approve. Even if you're the only one living in it and you shield the building from public view.

When you buy a painting, the artist may forbid you from changing it.

Why do you believe that can't be the case for a movie? Just because it is technically possible to modify only copy does not make it obvious that you should be entitled to it.

Note that I'm not asserting that this actually is the case. I'm mostly asserting it's not obviously not the case.

The difference with paintings and architecture is that there is only one. That is a sufficient justification for letting the creator control the ability to modify it. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of that painting or designing a model of that building and using it in some modern art bodily fluid exhibit or whatever.

Originals will always have inherent differences from copies in people's minds.

It's a good point but I think it does not apply to my example.

Because in my example I don't even have to modify the movie. I can apply the filter while it's playing.

And besides that your examples require the presence of a contract between me and the architect/painter where I resign from my rights to change the object. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com