Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> These actions don't strike me as "censorship" because my enforcement of IP doesn't stop you from expressing yourself in any way. Oh sure, it stops you from pirating me, but that's not censorship. That's me stopping you from being a plagiarist and a copycat.

When I get tired of my video host or get locked out of my account, I should be able to download all of my own videos to put them on another host, regardless of whether the old host chooses to make that easy.

Journalists should be able to download every video of a politician making a false statement so they can play it back in a year when the evidence of that lie becomes better established.

Works by US Government entities like NASA are in the public domain. Anybody should be able to do what they like with them.

These things are distributed on the same services as anything else. A download tool can't evaluate the copyright status of a work or make a fair use determination. Prohibiting the tool is prohibiting all of the uses that should be allowed.

I used it as a student so I could watch lecture videos while in an area with poor network connectivity. It was my tuition funding the creation of these videos.

What'll they come for next, FFmpeg?

The whole reason you can't do those things you believe you should is because you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things.

Stop giving your rights away! You do have those rights, until you agree to give them up.

> The whole reason you can't do those things you believe you should is because you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things.

We need to stop pretending that these so-called "agreements" are good faith meetings of the mind negotiated between parties of roughly equal power. The consumer's only options are take it or leave it. There's a huge power imbalance and no ability for the powerless party to negotiate. That's not an agreement, that's a unilateral policy.

Sorry but yes, the consumer's only option is to take it or leave it. You are not entitled to the product of someone else's work.

I see this as the very definition to entitlement; that you must be allowed to use something, even if you don't want to use it the way the owner of the thing wants you to use it.

Some (myself included) reject the premise that the designer and benefactor of the agreement has the right to define the usage of ’thing’.

We are talking about intangibles here (often described by the politically and philosophically loaded term intellectual property) I find it unreasonable to treat them as private physical property. It restricts the true potential of the digital, i.e virtually zero distribution costs.

In my view, digital content resembles a ’commons’ in their use and cultural significance. I believe the interest of IP-holders should take a back seat to the far more important free flow of information.

”Intellectual property” has always been stolen and copied and I would argue that the world is better of that way. So much of our art and technology would not exist without these ”thefts”. Intellectual property is only property because a state uses its monopoly on violence to enforce someones monopoly on an idea/concept/information. It is not because of any divine right of an owner to restrict what others do with intangible objects of information.

Also, there is a spectrum. No one would think it just if the Fourier transform was subject to licensing.

I get this mindset, but there are also loads of cases where society overrules this.

Consider the case of VCRs/DVRs: the cable companies said "this is for live viewing", but people wanted to record video. There was big pushback, but it was ruled that people have the right to use the video that way, even if television channels don't want them to.

We don't have a right to the labor of someone else, but if we're consuming the fruits of that labor, there's a case to be made that we should be allowed to do so how we see fit.

For instance, your current fork is "if you don't like the company's terms, don't use the company's products". Another fork that we could use might be "if companies don't like the users' consumption practices, they can exit business or change their product".

So an employer must be allowed to use the employee and their product, even if that employee doesn't want their work to be used that way... this is selfish privilege assumed by the employer? The owner of a body may not want it to be used the way the employer deems necessary. The artist may not want their art to be used for unethical ppurposes. The producer of labor and art is taken (paid) or left (to die, penniless). But you're right: their employer is not entitled to the product of their employee's work. Thanks for putting this so clearly.

When did the journalist sign their rights away to download a copy of the video uploaded by a third-party? If the journo had their way, the third-party would have given the video directly to the press.

The third-party who uploaded the video already waived their own rights, and by accessing the site, the journalist also agreed to be bound by the T&Cs.

What is your solution here for the average schmoe who isn't tech literate but is potentially a citizen documenting corruption?

Sure, there's secure drop software etc, but do you really think the average person is going to be able to do that in the field from their cellphone? Also consider the footage that comes out of warzones on YT.

> you agreed that you'd give up your right to do those things.

I dispute that I agreed to any such thing.

Imagine a politician went around wearing a shirt that said "by listening to me you agree not to criticize me."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com