6 ms·

Look, if as per the article you need an army of lawyers to fix your tractor, that should be your first—no probably 10th—clue that your problem is not copyright

Look, if as per the article you need an army of lawyers to fix your tractor, that should be your first—no probably 10th—clue that your problem is not copyright law, but the idea that copyright law is something that you need to respect and obey. You are always free to withdraw your consent from having your life be ruled by what a handful of people you've never met (and whose names you don't even know) have decided about how you and your community needs to conduct itself.

viraptor 11y ago
> You are always free to withdraw your consent from having your life be ruled by what a handful of people you've never met No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't change anything in practice.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  > No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't change anything in practice. Sure you are. People do it all the time.
  - itistoday2 11y ago
    lol @ HN downvoters who can't handle reality. That's OK, I understand and respect that you've chosen to subject yourself to rules you don't like. Just less whining and complaining, OK?
    - derekp7 11y ago
      Could you clarify what your thought is? Are you basically suggesting civil disobedience as a form of protest? That has had some effect in the past, however it took a large coordinated effort, plus it took enough people from outside the movements to recognize the non-moral nature of the laws that were being protested, and finally it also caused a lot of sacrifice for those conducting the civil disobedience.
      - itistoday2 11y ago
        I am saying that if a large group of people feel they are being abused by a system that does not represent them, they are always free to reject that system and adopt another one that does work for them. If you walk into a casino and notice that the rules appear to be rigged against you, do you try to work within the casino's system, perhaps petitioning the staff to change the rules to be more in your favor? You have other options: (1) Leave the casino, (2) attempt to cheat the casino, (3) fight the casino using either violent or (preferably) non-violent means, (4) create a new establishment that you and your group are happy with. Your other choice is to continue to play the slots and vent online when you keep losing, and although that might make you feel better it won't change the reality of the game.
        viraptor 11y ago
        I'd like this to succeed (really), but as far as we know, right now, you're choosing option 5 (venting online) while trying to convince us that 1, 2, 3, 4 are better. Show us what you've done. And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects.
        itistoday2 11y ago
        > Show us what you've done. My C.V.: https://fixingtao.com/cv/ https://fixingtao.com/cv/ EDIT: just noticed you stealth-edited this in: > And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects. Tech projects can fall under (4). Tor, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Silk Road, etc. were all tech projects representing withdrawal of consent through the creation of "new establishments". Creating a new country (if that's what you're referring to) also falls under (4) but requires a more cohesive community that does not knee-jerk downvote when told they have options. ;)
        rosser 11y ago
        "Withdrawal of consent" isn't merely "creating things to skirt around the rules I don't like". Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent. You do not get to reap the benefits of living in a society without subscribing to its rules and mores. You can work to change them from within, or you can walk. Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shouldering your share of the responsibilities concomitant to those rights is spectacularly delusional.
- Riseed 11y ago
  Whether it changes anything likely depends how you do it. For example, writing a letter to the editor may not change much, while renouncing citizenship would likely change a lot in practice.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    But to renounce your citizenship you have to have another place to live. Unless you create your own country, or go meet the entire government, you're still "ruled by what a handful of people you've never met".
    - itistoday2 11y ago
      So go ahead and create your own country. You won't be the first (nor the last) to have done so.
    - Riseed 11y ago
      One could emigrate to or create a micronation or microstate. Sealand is a fairly well known micronation. The Conch Republic [0] is another, and is an example of (on multiple occasions) withdrawing consent from being ruled by the outside government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic
      - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
        Sealand, really? Who'd want to live like that? And how'd you finance it?
        Riseed 11y ago
        Someone wants to live like that, or it wouldn't exist.
        Ao7bei3s 11y ago
        A single caretaker. Not even the self-proclaimed regent lives there. Yours is hardly a convincing argument.
Riseed 11y ago
I agree to an extent. Paying fines and/or avoiding jail (within the system) are not free as in beer. Likewise, leaving the country and relocating is also not free (e.g. there's a few to renounce US citizenship). Whether we're free as in speech to withdraw consent from the social contract (by which I do not mean to speak to its validity or lack thereof) is more of a grey area. As with freedom of speech, the freedom to withdraw from the social contract is not without its (ominous) ramifications. See, e.g. Aaron Swartz.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  > Paying fines and/or avoiding jail (within the system) are not free as in beer. Well, in terms of copyright law it really depends. People violate copyright law all the time (see torrents) and vast majority don't pay anything for doing so. Sometimes people do have to face consequences, but one of the reasons that is so is because of the folks who disagree with and vehemently complain about ridiculous laws that do not represent their views, while simultaneously taking actions to re-enforce the system that gives them those laws (like downvoting comments on HN that remind them they actually do have a voice and a choice in the matter).
  - Riseed 11y ago
    Yes, torrents (and photocopiers, etc) are nearly free, except for the unlucky few who may be caught for purpose of example. And yes, this is in part due to uninformed, unmotivated, and/or repressed dissenters, regardless of where the first or largest blame may rest. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there's yet a torrent for tractor software, and my impression from other articles is that John Deere et al are more suit-happy at the moment than are the music, film, and publishing companies.
geofft 11y ago
My life is markedly better for having those handful of people make those decisions. It is just that in a few cases, like repairing tractors, they get it wrong. That doesn't mean I want them gone, that just means I want them to stop being wrong, or at most I want different people to make those decisions and have that power over my life. Rejecting the entire concept of having leadership and structure because these particular leaders aren't perfect is like writing in assembly for the rest of your life because C compilers optimize out unexpected things sometimes.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  > Rejecting the entire concept of having leadership and structure because these particular leaders aren't perfect... That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying pick a structure and leaders that really do represent you. That's a very different thing from voting for pre-selected candidates whom you've never met and don't interact with, and then crossing your fingers.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > That's a very different thing from voting for pre-selected candidates whom you've never met and don't interact with, and then crossing your fingers. I'm a bit sick right now, thus either my math or my formulas might be off. I welcome any corrections. :) So. Copyright policy is decided at the Federal level. The people in charge of setting that policy are elected members of Congress. Let's assume that you can declare someone "met and interacted with" with a single five-minute conversation. According to Wikipedia, California is the most populous state and Wyoming is the least populous state. The CA Secretary of State reports that ~17 million voters were registered to vote as of the date of the 2014 general election. The WY Secretary of State reports that ~240 thousand voters were registered to vote as of that same date. There are 124,800 minutes in a standard 40-hour-per-week, no-vacations-or-holidays work year. (60x40x52) For Wyoming, each Senatorial challenger would need to spend 48,000 minutes per election cycle speaking to each registered voter. (240,000/5) That's doable. For California, a challenger would spend 3,400,000 minutes per election cycle on the same task. (17,000,000/5) For California, what you propose is not possible for Senatorial challengers... they'd have to do nothing but hold conferences for 27 years to get this task done. (3,400,000/124,800) So, what's the largest state where this is feasible? This might be South Dakota (the 46th most populous state) (with -I think- ~514,000 voters). [0] If it's not, it's definitely Alaska (the 48th) (with ~509,000 voters). So, it is physically impossible to even pay lip service to what you propose in either fourty-six, or fourty-eight of the states in the US. Before you get too cranky, I do acknowledge that the situation changes when one meets with one's Representative: In California the 27-year workload would -roughly- be divided over 53 representatives, meaning that they'd only have to spend just over half of a year meeting every registered voter in the state. But... this assumes a five-minute meeting. If that constituent meeting balloons to ten minutes, we're right back in the realm of impossibility. While the workload might be smaller in the smallest states, Representatives are apportioned by population, so I don't expect that the picture would vary very much from state to state. In short, your idea is promising, and would be really great to do... but there just aren't enough hours in the day to make it happen. [1] [0] I'm having a fuck of a time finding historical voter registration numbers for SD. So, that voter registration number is based off of what I'm pretty sure is current voter registration data. :/ (North Dakota doesn't even have voter registration!). [1] Yes, my analysis ignores the fact that a campaign could conceivably be a multi-year thing. It's difficult to get good numbers on the length of an average Congressional campaign, but it's... difficult to believe that a campaign would run for longer than two years.

viraptor 11y ago

> You are always free to withdraw your consent from having your life be ruled by what a handful of people you've never met No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't change anything in practice.

itistoday2 11y ago
> No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't change anything in practice. Sure you are. People do it all the time.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  lol @ HN downvoters who can't handle reality. That's OK, I understand and respect that you've chosen to subject yourself to rules you don't like. Just less whining and complaining, OK?
  - derekp7 11y ago
    Could you clarify what your thought is? Are you basically suggesting civil disobedience as a form of protest? That has had some effect in the past, however it took a large coordinated effort, plus it took enough people from outside the movements to recognize the non-moral nature of the laws that were being protested, and finally it also caused a lot of sacrifice for those conducting the civil disobedience.
    - itistoday2 11y ago
      I am saying that if a large group of people feel they are being abused by a system that does not represent them, they are always free to reject that system and adopt another one that does work for them. If you walk into a casino and notice that the rules appear to be rigged against you, do you try to work within the casino's system, perhaps petitioning the staff to change the rules to be more in your favor? You have other options: (1) Leave the casino, (2) attempt to cheat the casino, (3) fight the casino using either violent or (preferably) non-violent means, (4) create a new establishment that you and your group are happy with. Your other choice is to continue to play the slots and vent online when you keep losing, and although that might make you feel better it won't change the reality of the game.
      - viraptor 11y ago
        I'd like this to succeed (really), but as far as we know, right now, you're choosing option 5 (venting online) while trying to convince us that 1, 2, 3, 4 are better. Show us what you've done. And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects.
        itistoday2 11y ago
        > Show us what you've done. My C.V.: https://fixingtao.com/cv/ https://fixingtao.com/cv/ EDIT: just noticed you stealth-edited this in: > And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects. Tech projects can fall under (4). Tor, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Silk Road, etc. were all tech projects representing withdrawal of consent through the creation of "new establishments". Creating a new country (if that's what you're referring to) also falls under (4) but requires a more cohesive community that does not knee-jerk downvote when told they have options. ;)
        rosser 11y ago
        "Withdrawal of consent" isn't merely "creating things to skirt around the rules I don't like". Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent. You do not get to reap the benefits of living in a society without subscribing to its rules and mores. You can work to change them from within, or you can walk. Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shouldering your share of the responsibilities concomitant to those rights is spectacularly delusional.
Riseed 11y ago
Whether it changes anything likely depends how you do it. For example, writing a letter to the editor may not change much, while renouncing citizenship would likely change a lot in practice.
- viraptor 11y ago
  But to renounce your citizenship you have to have another place to live. Unless you create your own country, or go meet the entire government, you're still "ruled by what a handful of people you've never met".
  - itistoday2 11y ago
    So go ahead and create your own country. You won't be the first (nor the last) to have done so.
  - Riseed 11y ago
    One could emigrate to or create a micronation or microstate. Sealand is a fairly well known micronation. The Conch Republic [0] is another, and is an example of (on multiple occasions) withdrawing consent from being ruled by the outside government. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic
    - Ao7bei3s 11y ago
      Sealand, really? Who'd want to live like that? And how'd you finance it?
      - Riseed 11y ago
        Someone wants to live like that, or it wouldn't exist.
        Ao7bei3s 11y ago
        A single caretaker. Not even the self-proclaimed regent lives there. Yours is hardly a convincing argument.

Riseed 11y ago

I agree to an extent. Paying fines and/or avoiding jail (within the system) are not free as in beer. Likewise, leaving the country and relocating is also not free (e.g. there's a few to renounce US citizenship). Whether we're free as in speech to withdraw consent from the social contract (by which I do not mean to speak to its validity or lack thereof) is more of a grey area. As with freedom of speech, the freedom to withdraw from the social contract is not without its (ominous) ramifications. See, e.g. Aaron Swartz.

itistoday2 11y ago
> Paying fines and/or avoiding jail (within the system) are not free as in beer. Well, in terms of copyright law it really depends. People violate copyright law all the time (see torrents) and vast majority don't pay anything for doing so. Sometimes people do have to face consequences, but one of the reasons that is so is because of the folks who disagree with and vehemently complain about ridiculous laws that do not represent their views, while simultaneously taking actions to re-enforce the system that gives them those laws (like downvoting comments on HN that remind them they actually do have a voice and a choice in the matter).
- Riseed 11y ago
  Yes, torrents (and photocopiers, etc) are nearly free, except for the unlucky few who may be caught for purpose of example. And yes, this is in part due to uninformed, unmotivated, and/or repressed dissenters, regardless of where the first or largest blame may rest. I may be mistaken, but I don't believe there's yet a torrent for tractor software, and my impression from other articles is that John Deere et al are more suit-happy at the moment than are the music, film, and publishing companies.

geofft 11y ago

My life is markedly better for having those handful of people make those decisions. It is just that in a few cases, like repairing tractors, they get it wrong. That doesn't mean I want them gone, that just means I want them to stop being wrong, or at most I want different people to make those decisions and have that power over my life. Rejecting the entire concept of having leadership and structure because these particular leaders aren't perfect is like writing in assembly for the rest of your life because C compilers optimize out unexpected things sometimes.

itistoday2 11y ago
> Rejecting the entire concept of having leadership and structure because these particular leaders aren't perfect... That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying pick a structure and leaders that really do represent you. That's a very different thing from voting for pre-selected candidates whom you've never met and don't interact with, and then crossing your fingers.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > That's a very different thing from voting for pre-selected candidates whom you've never met and don't interact with, and then crossing your fingers. I'm a bit sick right now, thus either my math or my formulas might be off. I welcome any corrections. :) So. Copyright policy is decided at the Federal level. The people in charge of setting that policy are elected members of Congress. Let's assume that you can declare someone "met and interacted with" with a single five-minute conversation. According to Wikipedia, California is the most populous state and Wyoming is the least populous state. The CA Secretary of State reports that ~17 million voters were registered to vote as of the date of the 2014 general election. The WY Secretary of State reports that ~240 thousand voters were registered to vote as of that same date. There are 124,800 minutes in a standard 40-hour-per-week, no-vacations-or-holidays work year. (60x40x52) For Wyoming, each Senatorial challenger would need to spend 48,000 minutes per election cycle speaking to each registered voter. (240,000/5) That's doable. For California, a challenger would spend 3,400,000 minutes per election cycle on the same task. (17,000,000/5) For California, what you propose is not possible for Senatorial challengers... they'd have to do nothing but hold conferences for 27 years to get this task done. (3,400,000/124,800) So, what's the largest state where this is feasible? This might be South Dakota (the 46th most populous state) (with -I think- ~514,000 voters). [0] If it's not, it's definitely Alaska (the 48th) (with ~509,000 voters). So, it is physically impossible to even pay lip service to what you propose in either fourty-six, or fourty-eight of the states in the US. Before you get too cranky, I do acknowledge that the situation changes when one meets with one's Representative: In California the 27-year workload would -roughly- be divided over 53 representatives, meaning that they'd only have to spend just over half of a year meeting every registered voter in the state. But... this assumes a five-minute meeting. If that constituent meeting balloons to ten minutes, we're right back in the realm of impossibility. While the workload might be smaller in the smallest states, Representatives are apportioned by population, so I don't expect that the picture would vary very much from state to state. In short, your idea is promising, and would be really great to do... but there just aren't enough hours in the day to make it happen. [1] [0] I'm having a fuck of a time finding historical voter registration numbers for SD. So, that voter registration number is based off of what I'm pretty sure is current voter registration data. :/ (North Dakota doesn't even have voter registration!). [1] Yes, my analysis ignores the fact that a campaign could conceivably be a multi-year thing. It's difficult to get good numbers on the length of an average Congressional campaign, but it's... difficult to believe that a campaign would run for longer than two years.