4 ms·

>Once content has reached my computer, it is mine to do with as I wish and consume as I wish. Is it that simple? Morally and ignorantly I agree but I'm not so

by bcook 9y ago

>Once content has reached my computer, it is mine to do with as I wish and consume as I wish. Is it that simple? Morally and ignorantly I agree but I'm not so sure the law and more sophisticated understandings of morality agree. I mean, I'm happy to pay for & watch Netflix but I understand that (edit: for most titles) I never paid for download rights, only streaming rights.

Endy 9y ago
Streaming is downloading. The information is on your PC; you should have the right to do with it as you please forever.
- masterleep 9y ago
  It is equally logical to say that your name appeared in my computer just now by virtue of your comment; therefore, I can now impersonate you forever.
  - seanp2k2 9y ago
    More equivalent might be "an apple appeared in [your] house", but this falls apart since apples are physical, finite, and unique entities, unlike streams of bits.
- tibbetts 9y ago
  When I buy a book, I'm allowed to do a lot of things with it (read it, sell it, burn it) but I'm not allowed to do anything I please. Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers. What protections should exist digitally, and how should they be enforced by software tools, is a reasonable thing to debate.
  - realusername 9y ago
    I personally don't believe copyright as a concept is reasonable but even if you do, viewing content you downloaded as you wish seems fair to me.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      What if you had to sign up to something, with agreed terms, before you were allowed to download that content? For example, is it OK to agree something is pay-per-view and pay for one viewing, but then exploit whatever technical loopholes are available to save it anyway?
  - zanny 9y ago
    Hate to even invite the rabbit hole, but even on HN you will find many people who fundamentally disagree with your assumption that copyright itself is reasonable in the first place. It is akin to the marijuana legalization movement in many ways - pot was always illegal, so it should always be illegal, and to question why it is illegal is to be unreasonable. Debate about sentencing, classification, possible medical use - possibly reasonable, but to question the fundamentals starts drawing on cultural and emotional ire and identity that starts breaking down reasonable debate. Copyright to many works much the same way - especially when no new works have entered the public domain in the lifetime of the vast majority of the populace - it has always been there, thus even if you debate duration you assume it must remain because to question why it exists in the first place is, again, to be unreasonable.
    - olalonde 9y ago
      That may well be true but in that case, the comment probably should have been "I oppose copyright because X and Y". Otherwise, it's hard to tell whether the commenter really was making a statement against copyright or simply being overly reductionist without realizing it.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      People are perfectly entitled to disagree with the principle of copyright and to advocate for change. Heck, I'm a content creator in several different contexts and I have aggressively lobbied my representatives for changes towards a more reasonable and balanced copyright regime over many years. But the fact remains that copyright is the law today, and encouraging users to break that law is apparently a consequence of what Google did. It's not unreasonable to debate the actual legal situation, not the legal situation that people who don't like copyright would prefer to exist.
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers. No they really are not, and have never been Copyright, historically, is a tool for Information Gatekeeping, censorship, and profiteering. Not one of benfiting the Creators of content See the Talk on the History of Copyright https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI We see this every day in the modern era where copyright is used to censor critics, prevent research (especially security research), and prevents more content from being created by locking up ideas for over a century Copyright is a Negative for Society, and for Creators
- untog 9y ago
  "you should have the right" is very different to "legally you can", though. The idea that as soon as data hits your computer it's yours to do whatever you like with doesn't really hold up to any legal analysis.
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    I presume that they meant "do whatever you want with it" as in "consume it however they see fit, as many times and when and wherever they like", not including re-broadcasting publically etc. And that idea was solidly cemented back in the days when VCRs were common - you had a right to record anything and watch it again whenever, wherever you liked.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      Actually in many cases people didn't legally have the rights they thought they did even with VCRs, but it was prohibitively difficult to detect and penalise infringements so in practice that made little difference. What you never had the right to do, even with a VCR, was something like borrowing a movie from your local video rental store, paying a lower rental price rather than a full purchase price for it, and then copying that movie so you could keep it after you returned the original cassette.
      - slrz 9y ago
        You're describing US law only, right? Because the rent-a-VHS-and-keep-a-copy thing is perfectly legal in many parts of the world. It'd be that way with BluRays too, except that there are laws now that prohibit the breaking of DRM systems.
        Silhouette 9y ago
        Because the rent-a-VHS-and-keep-a-copy thing is perfectly legal in many parts of the world. Where is this legal? I'm quite sure it would have been an explicit breach of the membership conditions for every video rental store I ever belonged to in the UK, for example.

by bcook 9y ago

Endy 9y ago

Streaming is downloading. The information is on your PC; you should have the right to do with it as you please forever.

masterleep 9y ago
It is equally logical to say that your name appeared in my computer just now by virtue of your comment; therefore, I can now impersonate you forever.
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  More equivalent might be "an apple appeared in [your] house", but this falls apart since apples are physical, finite, and unique entities, unlike streams of bits.
tibbetts 9y ago
When I buy a book, I'm allowed to do a lot of things with it (read it, sell it, burn it) but I'm not allowed to do anything I please. Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers. What protections should exist digitally, and how should they be enforced by software tools, is a reasonable thing to debate.
- realusername 9y ago
  I personally don't believe copyright as a concept is reasonable but even if you do, viewing content you downloaded as you wish seems fair to me.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    What if you had to sign up to something, with agreed terms, before you were allowed to download that content? For example, is it OK to agree something is pay-per-view and pay for one viewing, but then exploit whatever technical loopholes are available to save it anyway?
- zanny 9y ago
  Hate to even invite the rabbit hole, but even on HN you will find many people who fundamentally disagree with your assumption that copyright itself is reasonable in the first place. It is akin to the marijuana legalization movement in many ways - pot was always illegal, so it should always be illegal, and to question why it is illegal is to be unreasonable. Debate about sentencing, classification, possible medical use - possibly reasonable, but to question the fundamentals starts drawing on cultural and emotional ire and identity that starts breaking down reasonable debate. Copyright to many works much the same way - especially when no new works have entered the public domain in the lifetime of the vast majority of the populace - it has always been there, thus even if you debate duration you assume it must remain because to question why it exists in the first place is, again, to be unreasonable.
  - olalonde 9y ago
    That may well be true but in that case, the comment probably should have been "I oppose copyright because X and Y". Otherwise, it's hard to tell whether the commenter really was making a statement against copyright or simply being overly reductionist without realizing it.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    People are perfectly entitled to disagree with the principle of copyright and to advocate for change. Heck, I'm a content creator in several different contexts and I have aggressively lobbied my representatives for changes towards a more reasonable and balanced copyright regime over many years. But the fact remains that copyright is the law today, and encouraging users to break that law is apparently a consequence of what Google did. It's not unreasonable to debate the actual legal situation, not the legal situation that people who don't like copyright would prefer to exist.
- syshum 9y ago
  >>Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers. No they really are not, and have never been Copyright, historically, is a tool for Information Gatekeeping, censorship, and profiteering. Not one of benfiting the Creators of content See the Talk on the History of Copyright https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI We see this every day in the modern era where copyright is used to censor critics, prevent research (especially security research), and prevents more content from being created by locking up ideas for over a century Copyright is a Negative for Society, and for Creators
untog 9y ago
"you should have the right" is very different to "legally you can", though. The idea that as soon as data hits your computer it's yours to do whatever you like with doesn't really hold up to any legal analysis.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  I presume that they meant "do whatever you want with it" as in "consume it however they see fit, as many times and when and wherever they like", not including re-broadcasting publically etc. And that idea was solidly cemented back in the days when VCRs were common - you had a right to record anything and watch it again whenever, wherever you liked.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    Actually in many cases people didn't legally have the rights they thought they did even with VCRs, but it was prohibitively difficult to detect and penalise infringements so in practice that made little difference. What you never had the right to do, even with a VCR, was something like borrowing a movie from your local video rental store, paying a lower rental price rather than a full purchase price for it, and then copying that movie so you could keep it after you returned the original cassette.
    - slrz 9y ago
      You're describing US law only, right? Because the rent-a-VHS-and-keep-a-copy thing is perfectly legal in many parts of the world. It'd be that way with BluRays too, except that there are laws now that prohibit the breaking of DRM systems.
      - Silhouette 9y ago
        Because the rent-a-VHS-and-keep-a-copy thing is perfectly legal in many parts of the world. Where is this legal? I'm quite sure it would have been an explicit breach of the membership conditions for every video rental store I ever belonged to in the UK, for example.