Hacker News Reader

Comment by jMyles | Hacker News Reader

> It's not getting "better." It always just copied. That's all it /can/ do

That's true of all the best artists ever.

> They're just there to whitewash away liability from blatantly stealing someone else's content.

That's because that's not a thing. Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity. Nobody who copies bytes which represent my music is a "thief". To be a thief, they'd need to, you know, come to my house and steal something.

When someone copies or remixes my music, I'm often not even aware that it has occurred. It's hard to imagine how that can be cast as genuine theft.

View on HN

> That's true of all the best artists ever.

Just to play Devil’s advocate for a moment, why should we require human artists to be held to the same standards as automated software? We can make whatever rules we want to.

A human might implicitly copy, but they are not infinitely scalable. If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an always-available computer program with a marginal cost of zero.

> why should we require human artists to be held to the same standards as automated software?

Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow general purpose computing?" If the technology of our age is our birthright, don't we have the right to engage whatever mathematics we find inspiring with its aid?

> If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an always-available computer program with a marginal cost of zero.

...that sounds like a good argument in favor of the always-available computer program.

> Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow general purpose computing?"

I don’t think so? It’s not illegal to call random people on your phone, but if you do it millions of times per day with a computer it can be illegal.

It seems to me that harassment is similarly offensive regardless of the degree of automation.

...and it's not obvious that transmitting bytes (within frequency and bandwidth protocols) is ever justly criminal; they are trivial to ignore.

OK, you're plunging deep into the ethos of IP piracy, and staking your claim that "None exists." If that is deemed TRUE, then there's nothing to ever discuss about AI... or animated pornography where a well-known big-eared mouse bangs a Kryptonian orphan wearing a cape.

The reality of our current international laws, going back centuries, disagrees. And most artists disagree.

> The reality of our current international laws, going back centuries, disagrees

Perhaps I need a bit of education here, but have there been _international_ laws regarding intellectual property for centuries?!

> Perhaps I need a bit of education here, but have there been _international_ laws regarding intellectual property for centuries?!

AFAICT, the first major international IP treaties were in the 1880s (the Paris Convention on Intellectual Property Rights in 1883 and the Berne Convention covering copyrights in 1886; so only ~140 years.)

> Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity.

1. I hate the argument of "legal fiction" because the whole concept of law itself is a "fiction" invented that gives states more control. But I imagine you wouldn't want to live in a "lawless" society, would you?

2. Can you please explain how ownership of content gives states more control over creativity? There are so many way better methods of control a state can do (state-approved media, just banning books, propaganda) that this sounds like a stretch.

3. Alot of mainstream media is underdog rebels beating an Empire, and ownership of content definitely stops the spread of that idea.

1. I don't think that is necessarily so. We can look at the universe we're given for some obvious fundamental physical and mathematical laws. As sure as gravity, bytes can be copied. It's just part of the universe we live in. Legislation in resistance to that requires these complex legal fictions. I don't think all legal fictions are bad; but those that tell a story that plainly contradicts fundamental laws of mathematics seem to always produce unjust outcomes.

2. Of course states can outright ban content, but the facade of protecting the poor artist gives enormous political cover. Saying, "You can't create that content because it is subversive and likely to convince people that the state is superfluous in the internet age" is just a much more honest (and politically impossible) approach - saying instead "you can't create that because it infringers on someone else's property" makes it sound like there's an attempt to serve justice.

3. Can you say more about this?

> Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity.

Ownership is a legal fiction invented because it is perceived to encourage behavior that is seen as desirable; this is no more true of ownership of intellectual property or other intangible personal property than it is of tangible personal property or real estate.

He has a point that in a society with strong legal protections on freedom of expression, copyright is one of the main tools the state has to stop expression that is deleterious to the ruling class.

> He has a point that in a society with strong legal protections on freedom of expression, copyright is one of the main tools the state has to stop expression that is deleterious to the ruling class.

If the State wishes to prevent expression that is deleterious to the ruling class, it will simply not strongly protect freedom of expression. "Legal protection" isn't an exogenous factor that the State responds to, it is a description of the actions of the State.

Of course; I don't think anybody disputes that.

But the political cover of "but think of the poor artists!" is used as a cudgel for situations where "we prefer to censor Bob!" is unpalatable.

Every meme in history could be classified as a “derivative work” and DMCA’ed.

> Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction [...] To be a thief, they'd need to, you know, come to my house and steal something.

That's just a legal fiction invented so people can pretend to own physical objects even though we should all know that in this world you can never truly own anything.

Everything we do or protect is made up. You've just drawn the arbitrary line in the sand as to what can be "owned" in a different place than where other people might draw it.

Well, one rudimentary difference is that bytes can be (and seem wont to be) copied, whereas if you steal my jeans, I'm standing there in my underwear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com