4 ms·

> ...is what as happened to any other sector that was innovative at the time. s/innovative/"innovative and illegal" While everybody has got used to "freely" e

by pif 8y ago

> ...is what as happened to any other sector that was innovative at the time. s/innovative/"innovative and illegal" While everybody has got used to "freely" enjoy copyrighted content on internet, IP protection is still a pillar for the low of most (if not all) countries in the world. Let's stop being hypocrite: either we push IP into oblivion or we enforce it consistently. Pretending that IP laws matter only when it concerns our own content doesn't help innovation.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> either we push IP into oblivion or we enforce it consistently False dilemma. I can quote a sentence from the New York Times in a Hacker News comment without incurring, for myself nor Y Combinator, any financial obligation. "Fair use" has admittedly been over-narrowed in the U.S. But it still exists.
pjc50 8y ago
On the contrary, we've come to rely on extremely intermittent enforcement, because both the "total enforcement" and "no enforcement" outcomes are bad.
DanBC 8y ago
> or we enforce it consistently Why do you think it isn't enforced consistently? The vast majority of copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence, but a civil matter, which means the rights-holders are the correct people to take action if they wish.
AllegedAlec 8y ago
> innovative and illegal Why do IP laws apply to the internet, exactly?
- pif 8y ago
  Why shouldn't they, exactly?
  - AllegedAlec 8y ago
    Because it's not tenable and not desirable for any countries' laws to apply to the internet. Imagine what would happen if China decided that it made a law outlawing any and all mentions of the Tienanmen Square Massacre and decreed that because of that law, all websites which serve information to Chinese people should comply or face massive fines?
    - boomlinde 8y ago
      I think there's some confusion here. IP laws currently do apply to the internet, but I'm not necessarily subject to the same laws as anyone else. The example makes no sense because it has nothing to do with IP. It is also dependent on jurisdiction. China has no power to implement global laws.
      - AllegedAlec 8y ago
        > China has no power to implement global laws Apparently they have, because IP laws do, as you said, apply to the internet. > The example makes no sense because it has nothing to do with IP. It is also dependent on jurisdiction. The example was absurd by design. IP laws differ strongly per country. Which of those should the internet adhere to? All of them? This would not work, since some works which are protected by IP law in one country would not be by another country. Should it be decided by the country of the uploader? Or that of the downloader? Of maybe the country of the server where it's stored, or each countries' IP laws in which there are nodes it passes through as the data gets to its destination? There is no sensible and doable way to apply IP laws, or any countries' laws in general, to the entire internet. The entire idea is, to me, a non-starter from the get-go.
        boomlinde 8y ago
        > Apparently they have, No. > because IP laws do, as you said, apply to the internet. IP laws that are different depending on where the peers are. > IP laws differ strongly per country. Which of those should the internet adhere to? The user will have to respect whichever laws apply to the user, the host will have to respect the laws that apply to the host, the business owner will have to respect the laws that apply to the business owner etc. It's not rocket science. You're talking about it as if it's some sort of hypothetical situation we have yet to solve, but this is how it works now.
Silhouette 8y ago
The problem isn't enforcing legitimate IP rights. Effective and consistent enforcement would cause a wrench for a lot of people, and that in turn would surely cause laws to be changed to give a more proportionate and realistic situation, but we'd adapt. The problem is that no mechanism can exist to reliably enforce genuine IP rights as provided by law today without also causing collateral damage and excessive costs.
- pif 8y ago
  Well, you agree with me that current IP laws are obsolete and should be ameliorated, I suppose!
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    I don't think copyright as a principle is obsolete. It generates useful economic incentives to create and distribute works, which I consider to be good things, and I have yet to encounter any alternative economic model that looks anything like as successful at achieving those things. I do think the current implementation of copyright in law is flawed in a lot of places. This is bad because it potentially imposes excessive restrictions on ordinary people and sometimes limits how much we can take advantage of the benefits of new technologies. It is also bad because it brings the law into disrepute, and combined with the practical difficulty of enforcement particularly against small-scale infringement that is only a civil matter, it results in a general sense among much of the public that infringing copyright is a victimless crime and socially acceptable.

by pif 8y ago

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> either we push IP into oblivion or we enforce it consistently False dilemma. I can quote a sentence from the New York Times in a Hacker News comment without incurring, for myself nor Y Combinator, any financial obligation. "Fair use" has admittedly been over-narrowed in the U.S. But it still exists.

pjc50 8y ago

On the contrary, we've come to rely on extremely intermittent enforcement, because both the "total enforcement" and "no enforcement" outcomes are bad.

DanBC 8y ago

> or we enforce it consistently Why do you think it isn't enforced consistently? The vast majority of copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence, but a civil matter, which means the rights-holders are the correct people to take action if they wish.

AllegedAlec 8y ago

> innovative and illegal Why do IP laws apply to the internet, exactly?

pif 8y ago
Why shouldn't they, exactly?
- AllegedAlec 8y ago
  Because it's not tenable and not desirable for any countries' laws to apply to the internet. Imagine what would happen if China decided that it made a law outlawing any and all mentions of the Tienanmen Square Massacre and decreed that because of that law, all websites which serve information to Chinese people should comply or face massive fines?
  - boomlinde 8y ago
    I think there's some confusion here. IP laws currently do apply to the internet, but I'm not necessarily subject to the same laws as anyone else. The example makes no sense because it has nothing to do with IP. It is also dependent on jurisdiction. China has no power to implement global laws.
    - AllegedAlec 8y ago
      > China has no power to implement global laws Apparently they have, because IP laws do, as you said, apply to the internet. > The example makes no sense because it has nothing to do with IP. It is also dependent on jurisdiction. The example was absurd by design. IP laws differ strongly per country. Which of those should the internet adhere to? All of them? This would not work, since some works which are protected by IP law in one country would not be by another country. Should it be decided by the country of the uploader? Or that of the downloader? Of maybe the country of the server where it's stored, or each countries' IP laws in which there are nodes it passes through as the data gets to its destination? There is no sensible and doable way to apply IP laws, or any countries' laws in general, to the entire internet. The entire idea is, to me, a non-starter from the get-go.
      - boomlinde 8y ago
        > Apparently they have, No. > because IP laws do, as you said, apply to the internet. IP laws that are different depending on where the peers are. > IP laws differ strongly per country. Which of those should the internet adhere to? The user will have to respect whichever laws apply to the user, the host will have to respect the laws that apply to the host, the business owner will have to respect the laws that apply to the business owner etc. It's not rocket science. You're talking about it as if it's some sort of hypothetical situation we have yet to solve, but this is how it works now.

Silhouette 8y ago

The problem isn't enforcing legitimate IP rights. Effective and consistent enforcement would cause a wrench for a lot of people, and that in turn would surely cause laws to be changed to give a more proportionate and realistic situation, but we'd adapt. The problem is that no mechanism can exist to reliably enforce genuine IP rights as provided by law today without also causing collateral damage and excessive costs.

pif 8y ago
Well, you agree with me that current IP laws are obsolete and should be ameliorated, I suppose!
- Silhouette 8y ago
  I don't think copyright as a principle is obsolete. It generates useful economic incentives to create and distribute works, which I consider to be good things, and I have yet to encounter any alternative economic model that looks anything like as successful at achieving those things. I do think the current implementation of copyright in law is flawed in a lot of places. This is bad because it potentially imposes excessive restrictions on ordinary people and sometimes limits how much we can take advantage of the benefits of new technologies. It is also bad because it brings the law into disrepute, and combined with the practical difficulty of enforcement particularly against small-scale infringement that is only a civil matter, it results in a general sense among much of the public that infringing copyright is a victimless crime and socially acceptable.