3 ms·

You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial sc

You make two arguments here, one about degree and the other about kind. As for kind, as others have pointed out, the intent of IP law is to create artificial scarcity. The marginal cost of information is 0, so you have to put turnstiles somewhere. Society has kind of blundered and stumbled into the mishmash of enforcement measures we have today, but the intent is to reward content creators. If you accept this is a good thing, then the degree problem becomes one of proportionality. I agree that life + 70 years is exorbitant, but that particular formula is relatively easy to change legally. Practically, you have to fight powerful interests (Disney) to change it, but it can (and IMHO should) be done. One interesting notion is to fully privatize the problem of artificial scarcity. This might look something like leasing a Disney device (for example) to watch Disney content. This seems like something of a nightmare, until you realize that you don't really need to watch movies.

dredmorbius 7y ago
The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF (https://www.eff.org/issues/drm https://www.eff.org/issues/drm) and FSF (https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...), it inevitably creates backdoors for APTs. - The legal proscriptions on analysing and assessing ADRM mechanisms create both minefields for researchers and multiply the existing security threat risk. But most critically, and pretty much fully torpedoing your voluntarism argument, device vendors may be contractually or legally prohibited from producing non-DRM-afflicted devices in their own relationships with DRM gatekeepers, meaning that there are no (or very crippled or expensive) DRM-free alternatives. Witness ongoing efforts to plug the "anologue hole" (https://www.eff.org/issues/analog-hole https://www.eff.org/issues/analog-hole) in various devices and software. FWIW, my complete crap Chrome browser on my complete crap Samsung Android device refuses to allow me to screenshot this HN thread claiming it is a "DRM protected page". I'd love to replace the device with something vaguely comparable. Between licensing restrictions, monopoly coercion, and market dynamics, there is literally nothing available. Or more briefly: Your assertion is absolutely unsupported by empirical experience.
- javajosh 7y ago
  I wasn't aware I was making any kind of assertion, honestly. But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. I think the "shape" of this system represents a kind of platonic ideal that combines artificial scarcity in a free market system that values property rights. I find the idea abhorrent myself, and would not intentionally lease such a device, but I think it helps clarify the discussion.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    > But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. In addition to all of the other objections, the biggest failure here is of the technical measures to actually prevent copying. Even when it's prohibited by law and the pirates are a bunch of hobbyists, DRM gets broken time and again. You can imagine what would happen if copyright didn't exist and then breaking the DRM allowed for-profit businesses to legally distribute any of the content they extracted. Copyright without DRM >>> DRM without copyright. Though it should definitely be one or the other and not both. If copyright exists then DRM is not only useless, its existence is pure harm because all it adds to copyright is restricting things the copyright doesn't give the copyright holder a right to restrict, like free speech and fair use.
    - javajosh 7y ago
      I speculate that it's theoretically possible to build virtually unbreakable DRM into a physical device, especially if the device is designed to resist (or at least detect) disassembly. (Analog re-recording notwithstanding). I like your point about DRM vs copyright. I guess I've always seen DRM as the "ounce of prevention" that replaces the "pound of cure" that copyright enforcement entails - although distribution platforms like YouTube increasingly reduce that pound to closer to an ounce (at the cost of more abuse). I think your point would be valid if enforcement of copyright was simpler and cheaper; perhaps you've read stories about photographers whose work has been used by large companies, without compensation, usually because the asset was included in projects done by 3rd party contractors. Its very expensive for an individual to enforce their rights. But yes, if the justice system itself were fixed to be fast, cheap, and fair, then I would agree that copyright alone would be the preferable solution.
notSupplied 7y ago
Why would we need to incentivize creating more legislative annotations?
incompatible 7y ago
I'm not sure why you think that scarcity is such a good thing that it needs to be created artificially.

dredmorbius 7y ago

The problems with the DRM route are ... well known. See the EFF (https://www.eff.org/issues/drm https://www.eff.org/issues/drm) and FSF (https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/drm.html) especially. Among other matters: - Your devices are no longer fully under your control, and don't answer to you. - Even where DRM isn't itself directly. malware (Sony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...), it inevitably creates backdoors for APTs. - The legal proscriptions on analysing and assessing ADRM mechanisms create both minefields for researchers and multiply the existing security threat risk. But most critically, and pretty much fully torpedoing your voluntarism argument, device vendors may be contractually or legally prohibited from producing non-DRM-afflicted devices in their own relationships with DRM gatekeepers, meaning that there are no (or very crippled or expensive) DRM-free alternatives. Witness ongoing efforts to plug the "anologue hole" (https://www.eff.org/issues/analog-hole https://www.eff.org/issues/analog-hole) in various devices and software. FWIW, my complete crap Chrome browser on my complete crap Samsung Android device refuses to allow me to screenshot this HN thread claiming it is a "DRM protected page". I'd love to replace the device with something vaguely comparable. Between licensing restrictions, monopoly coercion, and market dynamics, there is literally nothing available. Or more briefly: Your assertion is absolutely unsupported by empirical experience.

javajosh 7y ago
I wasn't aware I was making any kind of assertion, honestly. But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. I think the "shape" of this system represents a kind of platonic ideal that combines artificial scarcity in a free market system that values property rights. I find the idea abhorrent myself, and would not intentionally lease such a device, but I think it helps clarify the discussion.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > But I think a world in which proprietary content must be totally vertically integrated with a non-owned proprietary device is at least an honest way to enforce artificial scarcity. In addition to all of the other objections, the biggest failure here is of the technical measures to actually prevent copying. Even when it's prohibited by law and the pirates are a bunch of hobbyists, DRM gets broken time and again. You can imagine what would happen if copyright didn't exist and then breaking the DRM allowed for-profit businesses to legally distribute any of the content they extracted. Copyright without DRM >>> DRM without copyright. Though it should definitely be one or the other and not both. If copyright exists then DRM is not only useless, its existence is pure harm because all it adds to copyright is restricting things the copyright doesn't give the copyright holder a right to restrict, like free speech and fair use.
  - javajosh 7y ago
    I speculate that it's theoretically possible to build virtually unbreakable DRM into a physical device, especially if the device is designed to resist (or at least detect) disassembly. (Analog re-recording notwithstanding). I like your point about DRM vs copyright. I guess I've always seen DRM as the "ounce of prevention" that replaces the "pound of cure" that copyright enforcement entails - although distribution platforms like YouTube increasingly reduce that pound to closer to an ounce (at the cost of more abuse). I think your point would be valid if enforcement of copyright was simpler and cheaper; perhaps you've read stories about photographers whose work has been used by large companies, without compensation, usually because the asset was included in projects done by 3rd party contractors. Its very expensive for an individual to enforce their rights. But yes, if the justice system itself were fixed to be fast, cheap, and fair, then I would agree that copyright alone would be the preferable solution.

notSupplied 7y ago

Why would we need to incentivize creating more legislative annotations?

incompatible 7y ago

I'm not sure why you think that scarcity is such a good thing that it needs to be created artificially.