7 ms·

Just curious why you think upholding copyright is a travesty?

DINKDINK 8y ago
Regardless if you think "copyright" increases or decreases quality of life, it is irrefutable that it violates Natural rights. If I memorize an illegal number [1], then I've made an copy that the corporate/state doesn't allow and consequently, I no longer own my body. Enforcement of copyright breaks the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  The EU isn't big on natural rights, though. They talk a good game, but once you get beyond the vaguest platitudes, the people in power at the moment are the ones who get to define what "rights" mean. As usual it comes down to whoever has the most lawyers, guns, and/or money. The concept is problematic enough here in the US, where our founding documents assume that rights are granted by a deity who rarely bothers to put in an appearance when said rights are being violated. It's best to find more rational bases than "natural rights" for arguments like copyright reform, if at all possible.
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago
  I don't think you understand what a copy is. Memorising something isn't a copy. The Wikipedia page you linked to doesn't even list knowing an illegal number as a crime. It says process, utter, or transmit. I personally feel like you've tried really hard to find something that makes copyright look like a bad thing and something that breaches your human rights. But all I think is you don't know what you're talking about.
  - dang 8y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
      I believe that was a civil way to point out to someone that they're not coming across completely lacking knowledge on a subject and that they're coming across as a try hard. Personally, I believe that not stating this in scenarios like this is akin to bullying. Basically, the person is out of their depth instead of pointing it out, people carry on while smirking to themselves feeling superior while everyone else enjoys the embarrassment. To me, that is intellectual bullying. This is not a nice thing to do. Instead, the civil thing to do is to point out that the framing of their point is not good and this allows them to improve the framing of their point.
      - dang 8y ago
        If your intention is to help someone improve the framing of their point, that's great. The way to do that is (a) not be aggressive, and (b) provide helpful information about the point itself. Then we all can learn something.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Is there any reason to think the EU endorses any "natural rights" idea, other than the ones they say they do? Is there any reason to think that the EU has enshrined or attempted to enshrine the NAP into law? In fact, I can only ever identify the NAP being spoken about by right-libertarians, who are a very, very small minority in European politics as far as I can tell. There are ways to criticise copyright as unjust without relying on the fact that it violates a fairly recent libertarian concept. I'd also question whether ownership of one's body is something a society should aim for. It seems to lead to various repugnant conclusions, including but not limited to the potential to sell oneself into slavery and to sell one's organs. Even in libertarianism this is a radical point of view. The default in today's society is that you don't own your body - so a criticism of copyright on the presumption that it is inconsistent with the rest of the law has very little force. You would be better off arguing on property rights, but even then you'll run into trouble (e.g many would say that the prohibition against possessing child pornography is justifiable even on J.S. Mill's harm principle).

Regardless if you think "copyright" increases or decreases quality of life, it is irrefutable that it violates Natural rights. If I memorize an illegal number [1], then I've made an copy that the corporate/state doesn't allow and consequently, I no longer own my body. Enforcement of copyright breaks the NAP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

CamperBob2 8y ago
The EU isn't big on natural rights, though. They talk a good game, but once you get beyond the vaguest platitudes, the people in power at the moment are the ones who get to define what "rights" mean. As usual it comes down to whoever has the most lawyers, guns, and/or money. The concept is problematic enough here in the US, where our founding documents assume that rights are granted by a deity who rarely bothers to put in an appearance when said rights are being violated. It's best to find more rational bases than "natural rights" for arguments like copyright reform, if at all possible.
johnnyfaehell 8y ago
I don't think you understand what a copy is. Memorising something isn't a copy. The Wikipedia page you linked to doesn't even list knowing an illegal number as a crime. It says process, utter, or transmit. I personally feel like you've tried really hard to find something that makes copyright look like a bad thing and something that breaches your human rights. But all I think is you don't know what you're talking about.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
    I believe that was a civil way to point out to someone that they're not coming across completely lacking knowledge on a subject and that they're coming across as a try hard. Personally, I believe that not stating this in scenarios like this is akin to bullying. Basically, the person is out of their depth instead of pointing it out, people carry on while smirking to themselves feeling superior while everyone else enjoys the embarrassment. To me, that is intellectual bullying. This is not a nice thing to do. Instead, the civil thing to do is to point out that the framing of their point is not good and this allows them to improve the framing of their point.
    - dang 8y ago
      If your intention is to help someone improve the framing of their point, that's great. The way to do that is (a) not be aggressive, and (b) provide helpful information about the point itself. Then we all can learn something.
claudiawerner 8y ago
Is there any reason to think the EU endorses any "natural rights" idea, other than the ones they say they do? Is there any reason to think that the EU has enshrined or attempted to enshrine the NAP into law? In fact, I can only ever identify the NAP being spoken about by right-libertarians, who are a very, very small minority in European politics as far as I can tell. There are ways to criticise copyright as unjust without relying on the fact that it violates a fairly recent libertarian concept. I'd also question whether ownership of one's body is something a society should aim for. It seems to lead to various repugnant conclusions, including but not limited to the potential to sell oneself into slavery and to sell one's organs. Even in libertarianism this is a radical point of view. The default in today's society is that you don't own your body - so a criticism of copyright on the presumption that it is inconsistent with the rest of the law has very little force. You would be better off arguing on property rights, but even then you'll run into trouble (e.g many would say that the prohibition against possessing child pornography is justifiable even on J.S. Mill's harm principle).