Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're right. You do sound like a copyright hawk.

Now. Why is the first point about the size of the industry relevant? Unless you're talking about their ability to bribe...I'm sorry..."lobby" Congress to pass the laws they like? That shouldn't happen anyway, regardless of their size. Laws should be passed on common sense and what's good for the people at large, not based on how big is your bank account.

What is dubious about his argument about copyright? First off, copyright is not "property", and shouldn't be treated as property. It's more like a permit. The government allows you to use a certain idea for a "limited time period" as it says in the Constitution. Unfortunately, because of the bribing..sorry, again, I meant lobbying...the "limited time period" turned from 14 years to almost 10x more. That doesn't sound limited at all to me. Copyright was meant as an "incentive" system - not as a welfare system.

Ideas can and should be reused. Whoever gets something copyright, most definitely got "inspired" or copied parts of someone else' ideas. That's why there isn't really something like "intellectual property", because nobody owns an idea 100%. And since you used someone else' ideas, you have to get paid for whatever you added only for a limited period of time, and then allow others to benefit from it, too, and expand the public knowledge. The whole point of the copyright system was to benefit the "public". It doesn't say "the creators" in the Constitution.

The fact that you dismiss DJing and remixing so easily shows that you have zero understanding about why fair use even exists in the first place. I suggest going through these, and hopefully it will change your mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83lhAlmp5vY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyf_0SMAsFA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAmmtCJxJJY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq5D43qAsVg

And here's a law professor discussing some of my points above such as why copyright is not real property:

http://surprisinglyfree.com/2012/12/04/tom-bell/

I don't "sound like" a copyright hawk. I am one. I am way, way to the right of HN on copyright issues.

So, your comment actually doesn't have much to do with mine. I am well aware that HN is full of copyright doves, and I respect that position (I feel like I'm going out of my way to be respectful of them). All your comment says is, "there's the opposite side of this copyright issue". Which is about as banal as telling me that water is wet.

From my perspective he addressed your points clearly and concisely and you responded by acknowledging these points exist and nothing more.

If you can't defend a position, perhaps you shouldn't be taking it.

From my perspective, tptacek was not trying to reignite the Great Internet Copyright Argument for the millionth time, and instead was making a point about what was politically actionable today.

mtgx is coming from a fantasy/idealistic world position and tptacek is coming from a position entrenched in reality.

I mean look at what mtgx said: "Now. Why is the first point about the size of the industry relevant? Unless you're talking about their ability to bribe...I'm sorry..."lobby" Congress to pass the laws they like? That shouldn't happen anyway, regardless of their size. Laws should be passed on common sense and what's good for the people at large, not based on how big is your bank account."

This is an absurd response to what tptacek said. If mtgx wants to advocate some kind of political revolution that is fine, but it is not an appropriate response to what tptacek is saying about Republicans spending political capital to effect change.

Your "copyright dove" is my fierce information freedom hawk.

Sure. It's a shorthand, not a value judgement.

After watching (and thoroughly enjoying) mtgx's second linked video [1] it's become a little more complicated to discern the left or the right of copyright. I think the talk's final point of speaking of "values" is very pertinent and in a way relevant to the way this conversation branch progressed.

From your quote about DJs your copyright values seem to be at the opposite side of openness (whatever the antonym of openness is), but having been reading and enjoying your comments for a while I suspect that comment might just be misguiding. I think I'd like to read more about what your values on copyright are.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyf_0SMAsFA

Ideologue: One who can't elaborate their position in response to a counter argument and just repeats scripted talking points again and again until the other side gets sick of replying to someone so dull.

If I was sure who you were referring to I'd probably be using the arrows, but since I can't I'll just say that mtgox really did not address tptacek's points. Or at least not the main thrust of them which was that this memo was completely unsuited to the RSC at this time.

As a bystander to your and tptacek's debate, I'd like to point out that it seems you didn't really address tptacek's main point: this bill was badly written and dealt with minor issues which matter less, and wasn't worth spending political capital on.

It's very nice that you dragged this into HN's millionth debate on whether copyright is property or not (seriously, don't people ever get tired of the same rehashed arguments?). But this has nothing to do with tpacek's point. At least, that's how it looks to me.

> (seriously, don't people ever get tired of the same rehashed arguments?)

Is an argument only valid when it's fresh? Is e no longer equal to mc^2 because so many people keep rehashing the same tired formula over and over again?

Honest Question: Do you think I said anything about the validity of the argument?

All I asked was whether people are tired of having the same argument over and over. The reason I asked that is because tptacek was specifically not doing so, and someone was dragging the conversation in that direction. You have to understand, people like tptacek, myself and others that have been on HN (or anywhere on the internet) for a while, have seen these exact threads, with these exact arguments, probably hundreds of times. At some point, you realize that no one is bringing anything new to the table. Then someone like tptacek comes along and does bring something new (and relevant) to the table, and he can't even do that without the same old debated coming up.

It's tiresome, is all I'm saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com