4 ms·

As a Banhof subscriber I'm a bit saddened that they have to engage with blocking any sites at all, but since they do, I'm happy that I'm paying an ISP with some

As a Banhof subscriber I'm a bit saddened that they have to engage with blocking any sites at all, but since they do, I'm happy that I'm paying an ISP with some sense of courage and integrity. As with all copyright related issues, the application of hilariously outdated rules onto modern situations never cease to amaze.

imhoguy 8y ago
But as usual such ridiculous rulings "help" to push forward the adoption of encryption and distributed web. Is there sci-hub on IPFS?
- ricardobeat 8y ago
  Until everyone is running their own IPFS nodes ISPs can block the content just the same.
tzs 8y ago
> As with all copyright related issues, the application of hilariously outdated rules onto modern situations never cease to amaze. What do you view as the justification for having copyright before modern situations, and what about modern situations makes that justification no longer applicable? Most of the time I hear arguments that some older law is outdated in modern times, the underlying human and economic relations that the law is dealing with have not changed. All that has usually changed is that it is now easier to violate the law. That usually strengthens the case for the law, not weakens it. For example, I've seen arguments that libel laws are outdated when applied to online forums, comment sections, mailing lists, and similar. (Reminder: libel is written defamation, as opposed to slander, which is spoken defamation). Due to those outlets, compared to a few decades ago a much bigger fraction of our communication is in writing. It's also much more informal now, more off the cuff, and more often with people we do not have an in person relationship with. This makes it a lot easier to commit libel. If the basis of libel laws is that it is wrong to intentionally falsely damage the reputation of someone else, then the technology changes over the last few decades do not change that. If it was wrong to make some accusation in a printed flyer posted around your town, it is is wrong to make the same accusation posted to Facebook. On the other hand, we might justify libel law as a way to limit the power that comes with access to printing presses. When producing and distributing printed material was expensive, those who owned the presses or those wealthy enough to afford to hire them would have a lot of influence over public opinion. Libel laws would put some restraint on that power. If that is how we justify libel, then you can make a case that it should not apply online because there is much more equal access. (I'm not sure, but I think historically the justification for libel law is the "wrong to intentionally falsely damage" justification, not the "power restraint" justification).
- thayne 8y ago
  There are several ways copyright and patent laws are outdated, though most aren't directly relevant to this discussion. Scientific journals are an especially interesting case. They way copyright law applies to scientific journals is certainly broken, but I think it has been broken for a long time. Afaik, in most cases scientists are not paied royalties for the papers they publish in journals, and in some cases even have to pay for the privilege of submitting a paper. Peer reviewers also aren't paid for their time reviewing papers. Yet publishers charge very steep rates for access to the journals. Essentially all the publisher does is, well publish the papers, and select which papers they think are important enough to include in the journal. Technology changes the landscape in three ways. First, digital publishing is significantly cheaper and more efficient than publishing hard copy journals, so in a competitive market you would expect the price for journals to go down. Second, in digital publishing, there is less need to limit the number of published papers in an issue to a set number, which again should reduce cost. Finally, it makes it much easier for "pirates" to distribute copies of journals without restrictive paywalls. I would also be very surprised if many of the scientists whose papers were "pirated" would complain that their papers are easier to access by other scientists. I mean, the more scientists that have access to the papers, the more likely the paper is to be read and cited. And most scientists will care much more about that, than how much money the journal is making off of it. The only people that benefit from high pawalls for access to scientific papers, is the publisher.
  - stevew20 8y ago
    Excellent explanation!

imhoguy 8y ago

But as usual such ridiculous rulings "help" to push forward the adoption of encryption and distributed web. Is there sci-hub on IPFS?

ricardobeat 8y ago
Until everyone is running their own IPFS nodes ISPs can block the content just the same.

tzs 8y ago

> As with all copyright related issues, the application of hilariously outdated rules onto modern situations never cease to amaze. What do you view as the justification for having copyright before modern situations, and what about modern situations makes that justification no longer applicable? Most of the time I hear arguments that some older law is outdated in modern times, the underlying human and economic relations that the law is dealing with have not changed. All that has usually changed is that it is now easier to violate the law. That usually strengthens the case for the law, not weakens it. For example, I've seen arguments that libel laws are outdated when applied to online forums, comment sections, mailing lists, and similar. (Reminder: libel is written defamation, as opposed to slander, which is spoken defamation). Due to those outlets, compared to a few decades ago a much bigger fraction of our communication is in writing. It's also much more informal now, more off the cuff, and more often with people we do not have an in person relationship with. This makes it a lot easier to commit libel. If the basis of libel laws is that it is wrong to intentionally falsely damage the reputation of someone else, then the technology changes over the last few decades do not change that. If it was wrong to make some accusation in a printed flyer posted around your town, it is is wrong to make the same accusation posted to Facebook. On the other hand, we might justify libel law as a way to limit the power that comes with access to printing presses. When producing and distributing printed material was expensive, those who owned the presses or those wealthy enough to afford to hire them would have a lot of influence over public opinion. Libel laws would put some restraint on that power. If that is how we justify libel, then you can make a case that it should not apply online because there is much more equal access. (I'm not sure, but I think historically the justification for libel law is the "wrong to intentionally falsely damage" justification, not the "power restraint" justification).

thayne 8y ago
There are several ways copyright and patent laws are outdated, though most aren't directly relevant to this discussion. Scientific journals are an especially interesting case. They way copyright law applies to scientific journals is certainly broken, but I think it has been broken for a long time. Afaik, in most cases scientists are not paied royalties for the papers they publish in journals, and in some cases even have to pay for the privilege of submitting a paper. Peer reviewers also aren't paid for their time reviewing papers. Yet publishers charge very steep rates for access to the journals. Essentially all the publisher does is, well publish the papers, and select which papers they think are important enough to include in the journal. Technology changes the landscape in three ways. First, digital publishing is significantly cheaper and more efficient than publishing hard copy journals, so in a competitive market you would expect the price for journals to go down. Second, in digital publishing, there is less need to limit the number of published papers in an issue to a set number, which again should reduce cost. Finally, it makes it much easier for "pirates" to distribute copies of journals without restrictive paywalls. I would also be very surprised if many of the scientists whose papers were "pirated" would complain that their papers are easier to access by other scientists. I mean, the more scientists that have access to the papers, the more likely the paper is to be read and cited. And most scientists will care much more about that, than how much money the journal is making off of it. The only people that benefit from high pawalls for access to scientific papers, is the publisher.
- stevew20 8y ago
  Excellent explanation!