14 ms·

I remember being vehemently against the DMCA along with the rest of the slashdot crowd. While I still think it is too frequently abused, I've come to accept tha

I remember being vehemently against the DMCA along with the rest of the slashdot crowd. While I still think it is too frequently abused, I've come to accept that overall it is a reasonable compromise between copyright owners and publishers (in fact it's far more generous than youtube's alternative system). I think a similar system would be a reasonable compromise here as well.

dredmorbius 6y ago
The DMCA has two notable provisions. Section 1201, anti-circumvention, is pure evil. As with the Youtube-dl case: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e506 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234) Section 512, content take-down, is a mixed bag. It protects small players, but also opens the door to abuse or abusive interpretations such as YouTube's Content ID. See the Adam Neely - Katy Perry incident: https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/adam-neely-youtube-copyright-claim-katy-perry/ https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/adam-neely-youtube-copyrig... Discussed in this HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22489373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22489373
nobody9999 6y ago
>I think a similar system would be a reasonable compromise here as well. How would something like you're suggesting work? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to moderate and under what other circumstances would it be inappropriate? Just as importantly, who gets to decide what's appropriate/inappropriate? And to whom would this apply? Section 230 applies to everyone, including you, me, HackerNews and your great aunt Sally. If we limit section 230's applicability, who decides where it should apply and where it shouldn't? I'm not objecting to your suggestion, I'd just like to understand how you see such a 'compromise' being implemented. I'd welcome your thoughts!
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  Isn't this a set it and forget it, issue ? All that is in play is defining what a monopoly looks like, and codify it into law. Once that is set, it will be difficult to change without significant consensus. Making (weakening) changes after the fact would become toxic as it would look like corporate givewaways, optically not the best for any aspiring congressman.

dredmorbius 6y ago

The DMCA has two notable provisions. Section 1201, anti-circumvention, is pure evil. As with the Youtube-dl case: https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e506 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234) Section 512, content take-down, is a mixed bag. It protects small players, but also opens the door to abuse or abusive interpretations such as YouTube's Content ID. See the Adam Neely - Katy Perry incident: https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/adam-neely-youtube-copyright-claim-katy-perry/ https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/adam-neely-youtube-copyrig... Discussed in this HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22489373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22489373

nobody9999 6y ago

>I think a similar system would be a reasonable compromise here as well. How would something like you're suggesting work? Under what circumstances would it be appropriate to moderate and under what other circumstances would it be inappropriate? Just as importantly, who gets to decide what's appropriate/inappropriate? And to whom would this apply? Section 230 applies to everyone, including you, me, HackerNews and your great aunt Sally. If we limit section 230's applicability, who decides where it should apply and where it shouldn't? I'm not objecting to your suggestion, I'd just like to understand how you see such a 'compromise' being implemented. I'd welcome your thoughts!

IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
Isn't this a set it and forget it, issue ? All that is in play is defining what a monopoly looks like, and codify it into law. Once that is set, it will be difficult to change without significant consensus. Making (weakening) changes after the fact would become toxic as it would look like corporate givewaways, optically not the best for any aspiring congressman.