4 ms·

Point taken; bureaucracies were even slower back then. But... > it was a tool for censorship When did that change? Did it ever?

by 08-15 6y ago

kbenson 6y ago
No, copyright is censorship, so it can't have changed. Censorship isn't always bad, though. Copyright is censorship in the same way that making it illegal for someone else to say they are you (identity theft) is censorship. Copyright is a bit more abstract though, so is easier to abuse.
- nybble41 6y ago
  > Censorship isn't always bad, though. Yes, it is. Censorship is obscene, no matter how well-intentioned the perpetrators. > Copyright is censorship in the same way that making it illegal for someone else to say they are you (identity theft) is censorship. It isn't illegal for someone else to say that they are you—per se. Actors do that sort of thing all the time. It only becomes illegal if they do so deceptively with the intent of achieving some sort of financial or personal gain, i.e. to commit fraud. The illegal part is the attempt to obtain goods or services under false pretenses. Copyright is completely different. It penalizes the unauthorized distribution of factual information—even if these facts are just the arrangement of words in a work of fiction, or a series of numbers describing a certain sound wave. There is no deception involved in copyright infringement, no goods or services obtained under false pretenses, just the communication of information through channels which certain parties would prefer to suppress.
  - bonestormii_ 6y ago
    Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. However, I think there has to be a reasonable way to implement copyright so that artists can get paid for their creations in a reliable way. A third party shouldn't be able to host/index a bunch of someone else's IP, sell ads, and make bank at the expense of writers, musicians, etc. On the other hand, Michael Jackson is dead. Why is his music still copyrighted? The material has earned zillions of dollars already. The ownership of those rights by corporate randos is ridiculous. Copyright holders have, in my lifetime, behaved in a ridiculous way--even abusively towards original artists via DMCA take downs. But the notion of copyright is still important. All that said, platforms that pay artists pennies while making billions on the activity they attract are probably a bigger threat to art these day. That also needs to be dealt with.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. Clearly you've never actually met anyone who was anti-copyright / pro-freedom of information. To begin with, they're not going to be looking for "a reasonable way to implement copyright" or saying things like "the notion of copyright is still important". Kind of goes against the whole anti-copyright mentality. > A third party shouldn't be able to host/index a bunch of someone else's IP, sell ads, and make bank at the expense of writers, musicians, etc. There is no "at the expense of…". The third party is performing hosting and indexing services and getting paid for that work. They benefit, the users of the site benefit, no one else loses anything. In the absence of copyright anyone else could do the same, so it's naturally going to be a low-margin business. If we want artists to get paid in a reliable way, without wrecking the rest of society in the process, we need to look beyond copyright, to patronage, crowdfunding, sponsorship, open collaboration, and other models. The presence of copyright doesn't guarantee that artists get paid. It does ensure that we're actively crippling our technology, erecting barriers between people, undermining the art itself by making it all about money, encouraging contempt for the law (not entirely a bad thing IMHO when the law is unjust), and creating a parasitic copyright industry which leeches off of both the public in general and artists in particular, in the end serving no one but itself.
      - bonestormii_ 6y ago
        I am fully against the practices of illegitimate DMCA notices, suing torrenters, etc. As I said, I also think terms of copyright should be deeply constrained and nontransferable upon death. But like, megaupload? Why should such a business model be allowed to exist? 100% parasitic. This is drastically different from what we know today. Patronage? Who if not the people acquiring the material? Crowd funding? Won’t that be in competition with the pirated commodity? Sponsorship, like ads in the content? I’d rather pay an artist for content for a reasonable price and duration, while shutting down excessive suits. Get off your high horse. It’s a complicated issue. The whole web runs on sponsorship and ads and it sucks horribly. There are balanced approaches worth considering. Content has value.
        6y ago

Point taken; bureaucracies were even slower back then. But... > it was a tool for censorship When did that change? Did it ever?

by 08-15 6y ago

Point taken; bureaucracies were even slower back then. But... > it was a tool for censorship When did that change? Did it ever?

kbenson 6y ago

No, copyright is censorship, so it can't have changed. Censorship isn't always bad, though. Copyright is censorship in the same way that making it illegal for someone else to say they are you (identity theft) is censorship. Copyright is a bit more abstract though, so is easier to abuse.

nybble41 6y ago
> Censorship isn't always bad, though. Yes, it is. Censorship is obscene, no matter how well-intentioned the perpetrators. > Copyright is censorship in the same way that making it illegal for someone else to say they are you (identity theft) is censorship. It isn't illegal for someone else to say that they are you—per se. Actors do that sort of thing all the time. It only becomes illegal if they do so deceptively with the intent of achieving some sort of financial or personal gain, i.e. to commit fraud. The illegal part is the attempt to obtain goods or services under false pretenses. Copyright is completely different. It penalizes the unauthorized distribution of factual information—even if these facts are just the arrangement of words in a work of fiction, or a series of numbers describing a certain sound wave. There is no deception involved in copyright infringement, no goods or services obtained under false pretenses, just the communication of information through channels which certain parties would prefer to suppress.
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. However, I think there has to be a reasonable way to implement copyright so that artists can get paid for their creations in a reliable way. A third party shouldn't be able to host/index a bunch of someone else's IP, sell ads, and make bank at the expense of writers, musicians, etc. On the other hand, Michael Jackson is dead. Why is his music still copyrighted? The material has earned zillions of dollars already. The ownership of those rights by corporate randos is ridiculous. Copyright holders have, in my lifetime, behaved in a ridiculous way--even abusively towards original artists via DMCA take downs. But the notion of copyright is still important. All that said, platforms that pay artists pennies while making billions on the activity they attract are probably a bigger threat to art these day. That also needs to be dealt with.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > Gosh, I'm pretty much as anti-copyright/pro-freedom of information as anyone you would ever meet. Clearly you've never actually met anyone who was anti-copyright / pro-freedom of information. To begin with, they're not going to be looking for "a reasonable way to implement copyright" or saying things like "the notion of copyright is still important". Kind of goes against the whole anti-copyright mentality. > A third party shouldn't be able to host/index a bunch of someone else's IP, sell ads, and make bank at the expense of writers, musicians, etc. There is no "at the expense of…". The third party is performing hosting and indexing services and getting paid for that work. They benefit, the users of the site benefit, no one else loses anything. In the absence of copyright anyone else could do the same, so it's naturally going to be a low-margin business. If we want artists to get paid in a reliable way, without wrecking the rest of society in the process, we need to look beyond copyright, to patronage, crowdfunding, sponsorship, open collaboration, and other models. The presence of copyright doesn't guarantee that artists get paid. It does ensure that we're actively crippling our technology, erecting barriers between people, undermining the art itself by making it all about money, encouraging contempt for the law (not entirely a bad thing IMHO when the law is unjust), and creating a parasitic copyright industry which leeches off of both the public in general and artists in particular, in the end serving no one but itself.
    - bonestormii_ 6y ago
      I am fully against the practices of illegitimate DMCA notices, suing torrenters, etc. As I said, I also think terms of copyright should be deeply constrained and nontransferable upon death. But like, megaupload? Why should such a business model be allowed to exist? 100% parasitic. This is drastically different from what we know today. Patronage? Who if not the people acquiring the material? Crowd funding? Won’t that be in competition with the pirated commodity? Sponsorship, like ads in the content? I’d rather pay an artist for content for a reasonable price and duration, while shutting down excessive suits. Get off your high horse. It’s a complicated issue. The whole web runs on sponsorship and ads and it sucks horribly. There are balanced approaches worth considering. Content has value.
      - 6y ago