4 ms·

Isn't this going from one (perceived extreme) of making sole actors able to bring content down to another extreme where no-one can bring anything down? Does fi

Isn't this going from one (perceived extreme) of making sole actors able to bring content down to another extreme where no-one can bring anything down? Does fixing the issue really mean making all material (copyrighted or not) always available and impossible to take down?

jMyles 10y ago
I'm less sure. I don't think that there is a per se connection between the definition of a right (ofI think that the human) or tendency (of the internet organism) as absolute with a viewpoint which is politically extreme. (In other words: sometimes the moderate position is the one which seems absolute, and the position of relativity or balance is the extreme one). The notion that speech and expression always supersede "intellectual property" seems to be the tendency of the distributed network. I'm prepared to argue that holding on to industry-age statues regarding "intellectual property" (ie, that some actors justly have authority to change the shape of the network in order to subvert access which they claim violates their IP) is an extreme position - an extreme clinging to policies which are unrealistic and inapplicable to the internet.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  I always get uncomfortable when copyright issues are conflated into free speech issues. I feel it's generally used incorrectly to give more legitimacy basically to people wanting to distribute material they are not permitted to.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    Two responses - a weaker (but still sufficient) one and then a stronger one: The weak argument is, "look at the current case! This was clearly, obviously not Samsung's IP and yet they were able to effectively erase a meme from a popular platform for a short time." This is sufficient to show that indeed it is a free speech issue. The stronger argument is that the internet doesn't seem to recognize this concept of "material that they are not permitted to distribute." Introducing it has meant (often intentionally) causing all sorts of damage to various protocols and services. Even if it makes sense in the context of industry-age culture (and I'm not sure it does), it seems to go decidedly against nature now.

jMyles 10y ago

I'm less sure. I don't think that there is a per se connection between the definition of a right (ofI think that the human) or tendency (of the internet organism) as absolute with a viewpoint which is politically extreme. (In other words: sometimes the moderate position is the one which seems absolute, and the position of relativity or balance is the extreme one). The notion that speech and expression always supersede "intellectual property" seems to be the tendency of the distributed network. I'm prepared to argue that holding on to industry-age statues regarding "intellectual property" (ie, that some actors justly have authority to change the shape of the network in order to subvert access which they claim violates their IP) is an extreme position - an extreme clinging to policies which are unrealistic and inapplicable to the internet.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
I always get uncomfortable when copyright issues are conflated into free speech issues. I feel it's generally used incorrectly to give more legitimacy basically to people wanting to distribute material they are not permitted to.
- jMyles 10y ago
  Two responses - a weaker (but still sufficient) one and then a stronger one: The weak argument is, "look at the current case! This was clearly, obviously not Samsung's IP and yet they were able to effectively erase a meme from a popular platform for a short time." This is sufficient to show that indeed it is a free speech issue. The stronger argument is that the internet doesn't seem to recognize this concept of "material that they are not permitted to distribute." Introducing it has meant (often intentionally) causing all sorts of damage to various protocols and services. Even if it makes sense in the context of industry-age culture (and I'm not sure it does), it seems to go decidedly against nature now.