Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

The key point here, as another commenter pointed out, is they are not going to give up.

You can win a battle here, perhaps rally around your congressman and get it killed, or petition the president to veto it, but it doesn't matter. They'll just be back again next year, and the next year, and the next.

This is the importance of constitutional amendments: they settle things on a broad scale exactly to prevent this kind of nipping (although it still happens, it just takes much longer time) We need an amendment or two around internet and computer freedom, specifically that computers are extensions of our minds, not machines to play content on, and that the internet is our primary form of political organization and persuasion, not a fancy telephone line.

I hate to be all doom-and-gloom, but I think that boat has sailed. The tech community might get its act together, give up all social causes and form some kind of committee or group to push for such amendments, but I seriously doubt it. Half the community is in bed with big media and the other half are just as concerned with other issues as this one. We are not organized, coherent, or focused.

Just saw a great series on PBS, Ken Burns' "Prohibition". It was all about how focused groups can make big changes -- but it takes a long time. I don't see the kind of anger and outrage against this as we had against alcohol. Very sad, because this is a lot worse.

The reason they can continue to relentlessly push for it is because the paid lobbyists who are pushing for it are just doing their day job. They can spend the rest of their lives at it. The public only has so much spare time.

Aren't there are paid lobbyists pushing on the other side of it too? Perhaps there are not as many or they're not as well funded, but I believe they still exist.

Companies like Viacom are also rounding up their employees to support such things:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/makers-again...

Yea, as Google etc are pushing against it, I predict deadlock for years just like net neutrality and the telcos ended up being.

The other reason is because people continue to infringe upon their rights. If people stopped taking what's not theirs, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to spend time on this legislation.

People have been breaking copyright law for ages. The only thing that has changed is that it's easier to break copyright law. It's a trade-off really. As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law.

The argument against this law is that it's better to have content be easier to create and distribute, and worth the trade-off.

As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law.

You also make copyright law itself less necessary. Its primary purpose is not to protect authors and creators, but rather to incentivize distributors. That's where all the cost and risk was when copyright originated. Now that distribution costs have dropped to nearly nothing, there is little necessity for copyright.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors.

The copyright make sense only in connection with distribution. Without the very act of distribution (like exhibiting or selling of the work), the copyright doesn't make sense as nobody would know the content of the work. You can create or invent without any risk of copyright infringement (and thus without any need for the notion of copyright) as long as you don't attempt the distribution.

>I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors.

Then I guess you have not been in this discussion for very long, or never paid attention. The fact is, copyright was never meant for creators. It was invented by distributors for distributors. The first copyright law was a censorship law to limit the amount of books printed when the printing press was was getting widely available in England that gave a total monopoly on publishing to a guild of publishers, without even attributing a book to the original author, but instead to the guild member who registered the book, attaining its newly invented "copyright".

You know what's the funniest thing about this? The content industry hails this as a stepping stone for authors and their rights, and what's worse, the public believes them. It's a lie, simple as that. Authors never asked for copyright. There was no collective push to stop the copying of their works. On the contrary, they wanted their works to be read.

The internet has made copyright obsolete. Moreso, it has made it harmful, and it needs to go away. The internet's here to stay. Copyright, by any means, isn't.

Everyone should read this post, the origins of copyright are very enlightening when trying to understand the insane system we have now.

Intellectual property is system of monopolies inherently incompatible with a competitive, creative and innovative free market, how the IP-industry managed to turn this argument around in the minds of most people is truly scary.

Thank you.

To all who are interested in facts over fiction: if you want an even more comprehensive view on the matter, try http://questioncopyright.org/promise.

A brief history lesson: http://questioncopyright.org/promise

While an interesting analysis, I think it should be pointed out this is a nonstandard opinion. I don't have a problem with nonstandard opinions, I have a fine collection of them myself, I only object when people try to claim them as the mainstream interpretation. You ought to know when you've left the mainstream.

The mainstream interpretation most certain is that copyright is to protect creators, not distributors.

> The mainstream interpretation most certain is that copyright is to protect creators, not distributors.

That is certainly the idealized, simplified narrative that most everyone will have been taught these days, but in terms of how copyright actually came about, way back when, it is largely a case of post-hoc rationalization. Hence the link: majority opinion doesn't change reality, only its perception.

If distribution cost were high and creation cost insignificant, copyright would not be needed -- the creator can handle competition from other distributors of his creation because they have to cover the same costs he does. It's only when creation cost is significant relative to distribution cost that the creator cannot compete with other distributors. Digital distribution is the extreme case of this: the creator must cover the cost of creation, while his competitors have almost no costs to cover.

>It's only when creation cost is significant relative to distribution cost that the creator cannot compete with other distributors. Digital distribution is the extreme case of this: the creator must cover the cost of creation, while his competitors have almost no costs to cover.

nobody forces the creator to create [or distribute the work]. Keep it in/to yourself. Nope, somehow "creators" feel that the society is owing them the copyright protection.

nobody forces the creator to create [or distribute the work].

Of course not. We just want to encourage them to do so.

Nope, somehow "creators" feel that the society is owing them the copyright protection.

That's the agreement between this society and creators who publish their creations.

>Of course not. We just want to encourage them to do so.

well, i doubt that Coens would stop creating if this copyright/IP system didn't exist. What i'm sure about is that there wouldn't be those crappy patents with my name on them. You get what you encourage. Enjoy.

If distribution cost were high and creation cost insignificant, copyright would not be needed -- the creator can handle competition from other distributors...

While this is probably true, it certainly doesn't mean that distributors want such competition. They want a competitive advantage, and it's much cheaper to get such an advantage by picking popular authors than having a technological arms race or price war with other distributors. Copyright was introduced to provide an artificial monopoly for distributors.

It's also easier now to block (and punish) "copyright infringers", which gives a scary authority to those who get to define that term.

"taking".

Antagonizing content consumers may be counterproductive to your efforts to convert them into customers.

It's not taking. There is a subtle but _clear_ reason it's considered infringement and not theft.

Not so. People spend time on this legislation because the lobbyists encourage them to, and the lobbyists encourage them because that's what the AAs pay them to do. And the AAs don't just want to make sure people don't take content illegally, they want to make new laws so that previously legal uses become illegal (e.g. no ripping DVDs, must buy a new copy for every device).

the key here is a supposed right for secure piracy-free distribution. Providing for such a right seems to place a heavy burden on society in exchange for which the society is supposed to get some benefits. About benefits - does it mean that the human race would be less creative and inventive (or even stop to create and invent) without the copyright protection?

We already have laws to deal with this. Skipping the court system shouldn't be part of the deal.

When copyright is rolled back to 28 years, I'll stop "taking" content. As it stands now, the "rights" to said content outlive that content's creators by nearly a century.

Netflix has convinced me that I won't pirate if I don't have to. In fact, if Netflix had everything that premium movie networks in Canada offered, I doubt I would download any movie ever.

Unfortunately, in Canada, the government is protecting our cable networks and limiting companies like Netflix. This protectionism is lazy because it doesn't ask these providers to advance to what Netflix provides (ie, complimentary streaming with cable subscription), it asks the Canadian citizen to "not worry about it" - effectively leaving Canadians with less options in the guise of "protecting thousands of jobs".

Regulators say, "Well, since they don't get Netflix like the US, they'll keep their cable subscriptions." But instead, we're lowering our cable packages and pirating as needed. So the cable companies try to squeeze our bandwidth down to ridiculous per GB rates so we won't download. Luckily, the backlash was strong enough to hold rate limiting off - for now. Downloading torrents isn't a huge technical feat. And setting up automated processes to download your favorite tv shows and movies is becoming easier and easier.

If Rogers or Bell just built the technology necessary to compete with Netflix, Netflix wouldn't have enough advantage over cable (broadband + cable is more convenient than broadband + cable + Netflix + Netflix compatible device).

I agree with you about the persistence problem; the government acts like a rotten two-year-old that keeps trying until it gets its way. Like a two-year-old, it learns what it can get away with and tries harder each time. Unlike a two-year-old, it doesn't grow up and learn what not to do.

We shouldn't need a constitutional amendment here; the constitution is a whitelist of things the federal government may do, not a blacklist of things it may not do. While the constitution does sadly include the notion of copyright, it does not include anything allowing regulatory authority over the Internet.

To be fair, the repetition is how the system SHOULD work. Do you think the first attempt at passing a women's suffrage bill passed?

I agree with you about the persistence problem; the government acts like a rotten two-year-old that keeps trying until it gets its way.

That's because the House elections run on a two-year cycle, and this is the part of the cycle at which people are paying the least attention.

While the constitution does sadly include the notion of copyright, it does not include anything allowing regulatory authority over the Internet.

/facepalm It doesn't say anything about aeroplanes either, but you'd be mad if they started falling out of the sky onto your house so you put with the FAA. Dark hints about constitutional permissions are a signal of irrelevance, because if it was as obvious as all that the issue would get in front of the Supreme Court much faster. You have to take the history of constitutional jurisprudence into account, because courts do.

This is the sort of problem best fought at the ballot box, which means holding your nose and opening your wallet.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that the federal government should not have any new powers, but rather than they should not simply assume them in contravention of the constitution. If the federal government wishes to expand its purview, it should have to get a constitutional amendment passed. Yes, that requires quite a lot of work and requires more consensus than political decisions normally require; good, that's a feature.

(Personally, I think we'd almost certainly be a lot better off if all bills required margins much greater than 50%; then, only universally accepted policies would gain acceptance.)

Hence my argument that we should not need a constitutional amendment to say that the federal government may not do something, unless the constitution currently says it may.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland is 'the' case which explains the existence of the Federal government's implied powers as well as the enumerated ones. For good or ill, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution is the law whenever there's a disagreement, and the decisions of the Marshall court in particular are very important (not least because Marshall was in office for so long so early in the USA's history).

It's pointless to have arguments about the constitution without reference to past controversies - I've highlighted the relevant section here, but this whole page is effectively the 'rest' of the Constitution that lawyers are paid to think about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court_decision... There's a short and very readable book by Prof. Laurence Tribe called 'The Invisible Constitution' that examines the competing approaches to constitutional interpretation and implementation.

Now in California, we do have a very comprehensive state constitution of the kind you're talking about - any significant expansion of state power or rules has to trace its way back to some specific constitutional provision. It's not my idea of an improvement: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

People act like there is no downside on hamstringing the federal governments ability to govern. Over-restriction of what the federal government could do is precisely what led to the creation of the Constitution.

Depends what country you live in.

In my country the Constitution was enacted for the very purpose of restricting what areas of law the federal government is allowed to weigh in on.

Plenary power is retained by the states.

No, it was amended for that purpose. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution afterwards, not at the time of enactment. Plenary power is retained by the states in some areas - the ones where it has not already been delegated to Congress. Art. 1 s.8 certainly does give Congress the plenary power over interstate commerce, copyright, and a number of other things...not least 'post roads,' which are arguably equivalent to 'communications infrastructure.'

There are limits on Federalism, but it is far from the unconstitutional imposition you seem to think it is.

I beg to differ.

We don't have a Bill of Rights or a Congress.

Regardless, I'm not sure how you got the impression that I think federalism is unconstitutional or an imposition... I generally feel that multiple conflicting state-based laws is an inefficient way to run a country, and note that the constitution gives the states the ability to cede legislative power to the commonwealth (as it should).

Just stating the facts ma'am.

Hang on one second, who in the hell is "the government" in this situation?

The politicians supporting this bill, mostly republicans, work the phrase "I'm anti-government" into every single public speech they give. Those are the only supporters on the public payroll, the rest are all corporate entities and lobbyists, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, natch. Those are your pro-government marxist ideologues in this story.

I really think the phrase "the government" or even worse, capital-G "Government", should be banned from any discussion of policy, it turns everyone involved into an idiot. Government and industry both have lots of moving parts.

Lastly, I agree that our existing constitution should prevent this sort of law. I'm not optimistic about the current "small-government" supreme court agreeing with me.

The sponsors of this bill break down as 16 Democrats to 11 Republicans. How does that work out to "mostly republicans"? It appears that this has support from both parties, and I think casting it as a party issue will weaken opposition.

Ok, it's bipartisan, but the only meaningful opposition has come from democrats, and the entire political spectrum of "anti government" has lined up behind it. I'm just saying breaking everything down to "government" is a ridiculous tagline that obfuscates more than it helps.

I mean, even if this is approved, it's basically the government doing extremely cheap contract work for the companies who'd benefit. I have a problem with it being done, period, if the ISPs formed a cartel with the MPAA to do this without the government it'd be just as bad.

the only meaningful opposition has come from democrats, and the entire political spectrum of "anti government" has lined up behind it

Which Libertarian think-tank was it that was supporting the bill?

Really, jbooth, your partisanship isn't helping anything.

Some of the think tanks on all sides are alright, but most legislators on both sides ignore the principled argument as soon as the established industry weighs in. That's the problem. I said it was a bipartisan failure in my last comment.

From another article:

"Thankfully, political leaders concerned about liberty, innovation and due process have stood up in opposition to this proposal. Senator Ron Wyden, a moderate Democrat from Oregon, has courageously put a hold on the Senate bill because of his concerns about the bill’s infringement of free speech and stifling of innovation.

“This is a question of whether the content sector can use the government as club to go after the innovation sector and everything it represents,” said Wyden at a recent Web 2.0 conference in San Francisco. “This is a cluster bomb where you should be going in with a laser, and the collateral damage to innovation and freedom is huge.”

Additionally, Tea Party leaders like Michelle Bachman have said it is inconsistent with Tea Party values. Consumer groups, legal scholars, venture capitalists, leading entrepreneurs, Internet scientists and YouTube users have all joined in opposition."

Basically, it's less a Left versus Right issue and more an insider versus outsider one. (Though I will point out that the only person who has apparently put much effort into stopping it is a Democrat...)

Please don't make this into another democrat vs republican issue. They may be using different language but both parties are essentially the same when it comes to the things they actually do.

> the government acts like a rotten two-year-old that keeps trying until it gets its way

Point of clarification: the government itself has no inherent interest here, and is acting mostly on behalf of influential Big Content lobbyists. Like so many other first-world systemic problems, this is yet another government-industrial complex.

> the constitution is a whitelist of things the federal government may do

Yes, this is how it should work, but it hasn't worked this way for a long time; scope creep has taken on a life of its own. Without implying a simple, "magic bullet" solution, We The People should acknowledge just how broken our electoral system is, and that it is the central impediment towards regaining anything resembling a constitutionally constrained democratic republic.

> Yes, this is how it should work, but it hasn't worked this way for a long time;

More concretely, this bill would be allowed up by the prevailing (contorted) interpretations of the copyright clause and the interstate commerce clause.

The copyright clause does not provide authority to regulate the operation of the Internet. And yes, the commerce clause gets contorted into an all-encompassing regulatory justification, but that doesn't make it right.

The good news is that strong cryptography will keep our private thoughts private forever. You may go to jail for refusing to tell the government what your private thoughts are, but they'll never be able to find them out without your help.

Now if only I had thoughts worth keeping private...

FWIW, I wish you'd keep most of your thoughts private :-)

I get that a lot :)

That's why we have to have our own people working tirelessly to oppose this crap. The EFF, for example:

https://www.eff.org/helpout

The above is practically the worst thing you could write on this topic.

As engineers, we are accustomed to think of writing as a mere exchange of data. But in the political arena, writing is an act. The act embedded in the above comment is to convey the defeatist attitude of its author. "Don't bother to campaign against this bill, only a constitutional amendment will do".

Never say the other side is going to win. Never say the other side is too strong. WE are going to win, we are going to keep going no matter how long it takes.

There is a way to kill big media: create companies that don't act like big media, or more specifically, big media's unethical acts.

After all, they are trying to stop the spread of their own media. What about them stopping the spread of their competitors' media?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com