Hacker News Reader

Comment by backtoyoujim | Hacker News Reader

Why is there yet another legal framework with basis for legal jurisprudence being a rule from a child's game ?

Rules of three/trinities are incredibly common in human societies, does the choice of naming affect anything very much?

I also feel like it's a bit disingenuous to refer to baseball as a "child's game", when most people know it for the professional variety played by high end athletes.

3 violations is enough to establish a trend, while giving people a little bit of leeway for the first and second violations since they may not know / understand the rules. 3 strike rules are formulated because there is a general consensus that such rules are fair and just, not because people like baseball.

Interesting to see that take.

As a outsider, three-strike laws have always seemed to be a uniquely American form of injustice, leading to overpunishnent. It's disappointing (and a little chilling, considering the global policies of the tech giants originate in the US) to think some people might consider them fair or just.

Two 'second' chances seems generous to me. How many would you give before acknowledging a pattern of willful violation?

The question is whether youtube connects the authority of the copyright owner with particular videos. It obviously does. The copyright owner is the entity that receives ad revenue, and the entity that can strike videos that violates its copyright.

>The copyright owner is the entity that receives ad revenue

to be sure, google receives ad revenue. they redistribute a portion of it, yes, to the copyright holders

Reply on news.ycombinator.com