Hacker News Reader

It is too easy to characterize the issue as creators vs distributors. There is something oddly different about the case at hand.

Pirate Bay/Youtube vs Sony/Viacom have one thing in common: content creator doesn't understand new means of distributions, gets angry, sues the platform, pisses the internet off.

The Oatmeal acted differently. When he got angry at the new means of distributions, he didn't sue, he didn't even threaten to do it. He accepted the situation, made a funny/angry comment about it (where he didn't lie nor even exaggerate the situation), and went back to his comic drawing business. Is it unfair? probably. But his "moving-on" attitude draws respect.

We're all cheering for The Oatmeal because he didn't attack, he got attacked. The internet is generally favorable for artists who don't make a big deal out of freely copying their work. Once they get attacked, at least, the internet always got their back (and as the IndieGoGo campaign showed, those freeloaders are more than willing to spend the big bucks to protect their proteges).

Very well said - and you've pretty much nailed the heart of the problem.

The mistake as I see it is in ruling on individual cases as a matter of some matter of single process that in itself can be ruled fair and unfair - where this in turn is derived from some fundamental intuition. Currently the DCMA does this on the basis of 'stealing is wrong' and 'only the individuals who directly perpetrate the crime of stealing should be held accountable'

Following from this intuitive starting point leads to the dilemma that you point out - insofar as the end result accords with our sensibilities in some cases (like the oatmeal) but not others - like worrying about massive multinationals that rip their artists off continually and seek to monopolise distribution channels to create artificial scarcity.

But believing you can find a single rational system that can encompass all facets is just madness.

This is reason become its opposite - something I saw all the time when studying various ethics related subjects. Some philosopher would come up with some kind of intuitive starting point and then reason it out until the Nth fucking degree until it was obviously wrong. Then folks would say - that's not right - and try to draw it back to another intuitive starting point that handles the counter examples better... until that itself becomes another absurdity.

Moral intuitions transcend the rational reality upon which most of law tries to base itself. So STOP MAKING IT A MATTER OF LAW.... Let people self regulate - as they are doing most excellently here. We know what's right in this case. Funnyjunk is behaving like a turd. Do I have to reason this back to an intuitive absolute foundation that gets the right answer for how multnational comglomerates should be treated? No. Not being able to do that in a perfectly consistent rational way actually does not confer any degree of doubt on the pronouncement against funnyjunk in this case.

Shit like this is of course one of the main reasons I want smaller government... not because it's necessarily bad if they get all keynesyan every once and a while... or bail out some nasty bankers... because government - at all levels - is invested in the very roots and beings of how we relate to each other... it's bizarrely fascist and horrible...

Soz </end rant>

I'd have to disagree with you on citing a paralellism between this case and "Pirate Bay vs Sony etc". As there's quite a huge difference between hosting the copyrighted content yourself, and pointing to where one can find copyrighted content. This has been the torrent stand ever since: that pointing to content stolen or otherwise is no way violating any sane law.

And it's quite sad really how an insane US law, the DCMA, is being used to make link aggregators, search engines and the like bend over to media conglomerates.

"I'm not advocating for any particular solution, just trying to draw parallels."

However, the fundamental break here is that the oatmeal makes his content available on the internet largely for free, whereas it can be difficult or impossible to access paywalled, unreleased, or service-based content.

People generally seem okay with control over creative content when general access to the content is not what is at stake.

I'm upvoting you, but I think your parallel falls apart at a certain level.

The Oatmeal provides his content freely available, a la carte, at his own website. There is no fundamental difference from consuming his "product" at http://www.theoatmeal.com vs http://www.funnyjunk.com. This is part of the general outrage, as FunnyJunk has provided no extra value for consumers, yet is still profiting.

However TPB/Youtube (arguably) provides value where the content creators (Sony/Viacom) don't, specifically in ease of distribution in the format/timeline the market demands.

I'm not saying you're wrong prima facie, however it's important to note that TPB and YouTube provide much more value vs. the licensed offerings than FunnyJunk does vs The Oatmeal.

I know it's not in the fun tone of these particular proceedings, but consider that this exchange illustrates a problem that does exist on the Internet: the DMCA, as it exists today, seems to create asymmetric incentives for the infringement vs. protection of copyrighted content.

While true, there is no other way for protection of copyrighted content to work without restricting free speech. Fingerprinting to block repeat uploads doesn't always work, because the second uploader may be the copyright holder himself! I got the impression that The Oatmeal would have less/no a problem with FunnyJunk if the images were attributed and linked back to their site.

Also, don't forget that DMCA is not "Internet law", it's an US law.

I agree with you that the DMCA isn't powerful enough to protect copyright in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, the DMCA is also too powerful and is routinely used haphazardly and for censorship.

In other words, copyright law is incompatible with the Internet.