How is it their right to push back the expiration date on their copyrights whenever they're about to expire, effectively robbing the public of its public domain rights?
How is it their right to abuse DMCA take down process to destroy the concept of fair use?
It's their right because we've decided as a society that it's often useful for people to have that right. There's no physical reason that knockoff publishers couldn't have printed dirt-cheap paper copies of Harry Potter as the books came out, but I think things ended up better without them being allowed to do that.
> How is it their right to push back the expiration date on their copyrights ... [and] to abuse DMCA takedown
These are a completely separate issue, and are less so "rights" than "practices which powerful players do and sometimes get away with".
in other words nobody is losing out on anything because i pirate. the alternative (which sometimes happens when i can't find it) is they still get nothing.
i don't think people realize how much they spend on media, like lots of my friends are spending $25/mo on video streaming plus another $10 for music. like sports? add espn, another $10. like ufc? add more for pay per view. big reader? another $20/month easy. read lots of news? they all want "just" $10/month or whatever even though most people aren't reading all of one paper like they used to, just a few articles from each.
am i gonna spend $700/yr for media? hell naw.
so if i can pirate it i do, nobody loses. if i can't i just don't consume the media.
> These are a completely separate issue
No! The original social contract was we'd all pretend their stuff wasn't easily copyable for a few years so they could turn a profit and then it would enter the public domain.
Not only is it obvious that they have zero intention of keeping up their end of the bargain, they keep stretching out those few years into functional limitlessness. About 5 years is more than enough for these creators to make their money back and then some, but we're all going to be dead before the works we grew up with become part of the public domain.
So why should we recognize copyright as legitimate? It's not. It's just monopolists and rent seekers and there is absolutely no reason for us to accept any of this BS.
Also, as usual HN wannabee lawyers have no idea what a “monopoly” is. There is no “monopoly” on creating video content. You can in fact do it from your phone
How could it not be? Public domain is centuries old.
> From the beginning of VHS tapes and at home distribution, there was Macrovision.
So what...?
> When copyright was made the law, there was no method of mass consumer distribution.
Yeah, and that's the only reason why copyright even made any sense. You had to own things like printing presses in order to infringe copyright at any meaningful scale. Now everyone has globally networked computers which make copyright infringement so trivial people don't even realize they're doing it.
> Also, as usual HN wannabee lawyers have no idea what a “monopoly” is.
> There is no “monopoly” on creating video content.
You're not even replying to my actual point, you're inventing a strawman to disprove so you can call me a "wannabe lawyer". Not even once did I claim there was a monopoly on any creative process. I claimed there was a monopoly on copying. That's what copyright means, it's literally right in there in the name: creators get a time limited monopoly on the ability to make copies of their work.
So because a law is easier to break that means it’s not relevant? You really think that most people who are going to bit torrent don’t know they are breaking the law? Even if that were the case “ignorance is no excuse”.
I can walk down the street if any major city and get crack and pay a prostitute to let me smoke it on her ass. Just because it’s “easy” doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Copyright dates back to the 15th century shortly after the invention of the printing press - meaning almost since the inception of technology that allowed copying media, government thought there was a reason to protect content creators.
> Not even once did I claim there was a monopoly on any creative process. I claimed there was a monopoly on copying
That’s an even worse take on what “monopoly” means
Yes? What is the relevance of a law pretty much everybody breaks, many times without even realizing it? When people download random pictures and videos via the internet, it's copyright infringement. When my family and friends send me those pictures or post them to social media, it's copyright infringement. When people share books with each other via messaging groups it's infringement. At this point it should no longer be a crime but a custom.
What is the relevance of a law that requires literal tyranny to enforce? Because that's what copyright enforcement in the 21st century looks like. To enforce copyright you need to destroy free computing as we know it. You need to destroy everything a site like Hacker News stands for. The technology to do it will pave the way for even worse abuses such as the regulation of encryption and control of communications.
Computers are world changing technology. Why should their potential be crippled for the sake of creators and their obsolete business models?
> Copyright dates back to the 15th century shortly after the invention of the printing press - meaning almost since the inception of technology that allowed copying media, government thought there was a reason to protect content creators.
So does public domain. Even the US constitution says that these exclusive rights are "time limited". Funny how every single time it's this narrative about the creators and their protection and their profits. Everyone forgets that eventually their works are supposed to become literal public property after a set number of years. Copyright lasts so long now that the very concept of public domain might as well have been erased from public consciousness.
What a load of total BS. We're doing them a favor by granting them artificial scarcity at all. We can easily make it last 0 years if we want. We have the technology.
We have the technology to walk into a mall and kill dozens of people. Since when is “we have technology to do $x” the justification for saying a law is invalid?
Lie. People created works before copyright and they will continue to do so afterwards.
> How much free content have you created?
Pretty much every line of code I've ever written. I've also provided my services for plenty of people free of charge.
> Since when is “we have technology to do $x” the justification for saying a law is invalid?
Since these rent seekers showed up.
You also don’t seem to know rent seeking means
> Rent seeking is an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity.
Are the people producing the media not contributing anything? It seems the people who want everything for free are the ones who aren’t making a meaningful contribution
Take a cue from the open source movement, if you want free content, take the time to organize enough like minded people to create if.