6 ms·

>Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. So are books. What do we do with writers?

by kace91 5y ago

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce. What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense. To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be allowed to run. I don't think anyone here on HN wants that.
- knorker 5y ago
  We kinda need an answer to that before we abolish the police... err I mean intellectual property.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Do we? To me the choice is simple: either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code. It's an easy choice for me. As it should be for anyone who browses Hacker News. In a copyright world we won't be able to hack anymore. So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrupt. We must not keep inching ever closer to the dystopia where the government and monopolist corporations own our computers.
    - knorker 5y ago
      > So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrup Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. They'll do just fine suing people who infringe, and/or get criminal conviction. As they have been doing. They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders.
      - EvanAnderson 5y ago
        > They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders. I'm not. I'm worried about the freedom to program general purpose computers and the freedom to create derivative works. It seems like copyright holders have been consistently using their lobby to make both harder.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        > Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. Then why do they keep doing it? Get them to stop, please. Make them stop adding DRM to everything. Make them get rid of DMCA anticircumvention laws. Just stop interfering with our computers.
        knorker 5y ago
        Again, it's not hard to stab someone, or to shoplift. Or run a red light. Why keep doing it? Because they made a thing, and they want to make money selling it. Pretty obvious, no?
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Didn't you just say they'd be totally fine suing everyone?
        knorker 5y ago
        Only if the law is on their side.
- knorker 5y ago
  > To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. It's also trivial to stab someone. Not all crimes can or should be prevented by technical means. In fact most cannot even in principle be prevented. Most of law depends on detection, not prevention.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that.
    - knorker 5y ago
      You should read up on the history of copyright.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        I have. To infringe copyright at scale in the old world, you needed industrial hardware like printing presses. Centralized operations of significant size. Easy target for litigation. Now nearly everyone on this planet has a pocket computer capable of creating and transmitting unlimited numbers of any piece of data at practically zero cost. People don't even realize they're doing it, it's so natural. They create truckloads of derivative works of copyrighted material every single day in the form of memes.
        knorker 5y ago
        Ok, so littering should be legal, too? Running a red light? And yellow light?
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        No?
        5y ago
- knorker 5y ago
  > Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that. Like I said, you're making no sense at all. With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable. We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy. Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Piracy has proven that"... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too. > either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code. "Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again". See how it's nonsense? (I can't reply deeper because HN limitations)
  - EvanAnderson 5y ago
    > ... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too. I'd argue the world is different now. We've only had general purpose computers and ubiquitous ultra-cheap networking for the last few decades. Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. I think it's also safe to say there was typically financial incentive behind most mass infringement in the past (i.e. "bootlegging"). I'm not sure that's the case today. I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections. > > either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code. > "Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again". I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby (though, admittedly, the gun lobby in the United States does kinda fit that bill-- but that's a separate issue). There most certainly is a "regulate general purpose computers" lobby (e.g. "circumvention devices" and the DMCA). > See how it's nonsense? Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.
    - knorker 5y ago
      > Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. No it didn't. More, yes. But 40 years ago you just needed two VCRs and a blank tape. The only thing preventing mass reproduction was copyright law. And pre-copyright this is also what happened. Because it was just not that hard. Even 500 years ago. > I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections. I bet less now than 20 years ago. Today you can buy spotify, apple music, google music, or whatever. You can stream stuff. Blockbusters didn't die because of piracy, but because of streaming. > I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby It's your argument. If a thing cannot be prevented, then it should be legal. Right? > Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense. That's wilfully missing the point. Take shoplifting instead, then.

>Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. So are books. What do we do with writers?

by kace91 5y ago

>Once you record a song, it's trivially copied and distributed. So are books. What do we do with writers?

Who knows? I don't have an answer for you. Maybe crowdfunding, patronage, selling physical copies which are scarce. What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense. To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be allowed to run. I don't think anyone here on HN wants that.

knorker 5y ago
We kinda need an answer to that before we abolish the police... err I mean intellectual property.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Do we? To me the choice is simple: either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code. It's an easy choice for me. As it should be for anyone who browses Hacker News. In a copyright world we won't be able to hack anymore. So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrupt. We must not keep inching ever closer to the dystopia where the government and monopolist corporations own our computers.
  - knorker 5y ago
    > So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrup Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. They'll do just fine suing people who infringe, and/or get criminal conviction. As they have been doing. They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders.
    - EvanAnderson 5y ago
      > They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders. I'm not. I'm worried about the freedom to program general purpose computers and the freedom to create derivative works. It seems like copyright holders have been consistently using their lobby to make both harder.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      > Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. Then why do they keep doing it? Get them to stop, please. Make them stop adding DRM to everything. Make them get rid of DMCA anticircumvention laws. Just stop interfering with our computers.
      - knorker 5y ago
        Again, it's not hard to stab someone, or to shoplift. Or run a red light. Why keep doing it? Because they made a thing, and they want to make money selling it. Pretty obvious, no?
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Didn't you just say they'd be totally fine suing everyone?
        knorker 5y ago
        Only if the law is on their side.
knorker 5y ago
> To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. It's also trivial to stab someone. Not all crimes can or should be prevented by technical means. In fact most cannot even in principle be prevented. Most of law depends on detection, not prevention.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that.
  - knorker 5y ago
    You should read up on the history of copyright.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      I have. To infringe copyright at scale in the old world, you needed industrial hardware like printing presses. Centralized operations of significant size. Easy target for litigation. Now nearly everyone on this planet has a pocket computer capable of creating and transmitting unlimited numbers of any piece of data at practically zero cost. People don't even realize they're doing it, it's so natural. They create truckloads of derivative works of copyrighted material every single day in the form of memes.
      - knorker 5y ago
        Ok, so littering should be legal, too? Running a red light? And yellow light?
        matheusmoreira 5y ago
        No?
        5y ago
knorker 5y ago
> Without technology, copyright is unenforceable. It might as well not even exist. Piracy has proven that. Like I said, you're making no sense at all. With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable. We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy. Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Piracy has proven that"... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too. > either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code. "Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again". See how it's nonsense? (I can't reply deeper because HN limitations)
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  > ... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too. I'd argue the world is different now. We've only had general purpose computers and ubiquitous ultra-cheap networking for the last few decades. Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. I think it's also safe to say there was typically financial incentive behind most mass infringement in the past (i.e. "bootlegging"). I'm not sure that's the case today. I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections. > > either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code. > "Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again". I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby (though, admittedly, the gun lobby in the United States does kinda fit that bill-- but that's a separate issue). There most certainly is a "regulate general purpose computers" lobby (e.g. "circumvention devices" and the DMCA). > See how it's nonsense? Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.
  - knorker 5y ago
    > Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. No it didn't. More, yes. But 40 years ago you just needed two VCRs and a blank tape. The only thing preventing mass reproduction was copyright law. And pre-copyright this is also what happened. Because it was just not that hard. Even 500 years ago. > I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections. I bet less now than 20 years ago. Today you can buy spotify, apple music, google music, or whatever. You can stream stuff. Blockbusters didn't die because of piracy, but because of streaming. > I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby It's your argument. If a thing cannot be prevented, then it should be legal. Right? > Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense. That's wilfully missing the point. Take shoplifting instead, then.