Hacker News Reader

Comment by gameman144 | Hacker News Reader

> How is it their right to hold a functionally infinite state granted monopoly on easily copied information?

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".

View on HN

> It's their right because we've decided as a society that it's often useful for people to have that right.

> 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.

This was never the “social contract”. From the beginning of VHS tapes and at home distribution, there was Macrovision. When copyright was made the law, there was no method of mass consumer distribution.

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

> This was never the “social contract”.

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.

> Now everyone has globally networked computers which make copyright infringement so trivial people don't even realize they're doing it.

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

> So because a law is easier to break that means it’s not relevant?

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.

95 years is “time limited” you may not like the time.

Yeah right. 1000 years is technically time limited, you may not like it but that's life buddy! Just accept our rent seeking and pay us our royalties for a thousand years because our grand grand grand children need to live comfortably off of the works.

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.

Well the alternative is that they wouldn’t have created the content in the first place. How much free content have you created?

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?

> Well the alternative is that they wouldn’t have created the content in the first place.

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.

People created blockbuster movies that they spent millions on computer special effects, computer animated cartoons or films at all before copyright existed in the 1500s? Before mass distribution existed you bought tickets to see plays in person.

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

ngl me personally i never pay for media (except very rarely a good book i want for my shelf after reading it). if i can't pirate something i just don't consume it. like, there's so much media now no single piece is worth that much.

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.

But you value it enough to pirate it. If it was of no value to you, then why pirata it?

i mean i got really good at piracy as a kid so it's easy. i value it somewhere between the sale price ($10 or whatever) and what i'd pay (idk $1?). like, i don't feel like i'd pay more than $5-10 a month for all my media, it's just not worth more than that to me. because tbh i'm not a huge media consumer (mostly music and books, and a lot of that is old stuff i already have). so anything priced more than the percentage of my media consumption it represents times like $5 isn't worth it to buy.

so if i can pirate it i do, nobody loses. if i can't i just don't consume the media.

You’re not a huge “media consumer” yet you consume media you pirate?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com