9 ms·

Fully agree. "collateral damage" just means...why can't I just consume everything for free, as if it's some human right?

by fleddr 5y ago

amelius 5y ago
Not true in the case of Yt-dl.
rglullis 5y ago
The point is not "consuming things for free", the point is neutering "the Biz". I for one wouldn't mind to lose Hollywood as an industry, or Broadway, or Silicon Valley... All of these industries are way too big and over-influential in all aspects of our lives, and leave us without any chance of a more human-scale alternative to counteract. I mean, how many TV networks are owned by Disney? Do you really think that all that lobbying is just to keep people away from watching copies of Mickey's Fantasia?
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  This makes no sense. Disney is not stopping you from making your own home movies. You can even put them on YouTube or any of the other alternatives. There's actually lots of good criticisms of Disney, but you didn't mention any of them.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    It's not about my own movies that don't get made. It's about all the other movies that don't get to be financed because of the 19th re-hash of Star Wars (or Marvel movie, or live-action remake of Lion King/Aladdin/Pocahontas/Dumbo/Bambi) that is going to be released and it's "guaranteed" to make another billion dollars in the box office. It's about having two small kids who get bombarded with products from their franchises on every media outlet. It's about them using their movies and works to promote whatever ideological propaganda that gets them in favor with government.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      Film funding is not a zero sum game. There are lots of other places to secure funding. I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. The rest of your comment is unrelated and somewhat unhinged, and appears to be going off into a general complaint about advertising, it has nothing to do with copyright.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        > I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. Good for you! Now go ask the other 99% of the population what they watched this year? > The rest of your comment (...) has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with concentration of power, of which copyright (and any kind of "intellectual property") is one of the favorite instruments from big corporations. I also used to fall for this "people are free to choose" techno-libertarian bullshit. The problem is that it is not in the interest of all the corporations for you to choose responsibly. They make the game so complex and so energy consuming that eventually people break in one way or another. "Copyright enforcement" only benefits the big players and the corporate world.
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        But that's not true, if you didn't have copyright the biggest one would just copy everything and nobody could do anything about it. With copyright you have a way to sue them for ripping you off.
        rglullis 5y ago
        Or maybe copyright and "intellectual property" is precisely what leads to existing a "bigger one" in the first place?
  - JetSpiegel 5y ago
    > Disney is not stopping you from making your own home movies. Excuse me? What if I want to adapt some Hans Christian Andersen story over 150 years old and get a cease and desist from Disney? Even if their adaptations are older than many people alive today.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Why do these corporations get to have functionally infinte state granted monopolies on trivially infinitely copyable data as if it's some basic right?
autoexec 5y ago
It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very frequently goes off the rails towards something that doesn't help the goal at all. > It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons. >It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. You could make a good argument here about how copyright law is too long, but that point is lost in the rest of the sentence. >It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. You don't need to get the rights if it's a fully original work. You could also make a good argument here about how licensing is too difficult to obtain sometimes but that point is also lost. >It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants This never happened. Youtube-dl is still up, if I recall for the short period it was taken down there were like 20 forks that popped up immediately. >It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight. >It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one. >It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. >If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention. There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I've tried to make these comments constructive so maybe that can guide you towards what your real issue is.
Jedd 5y ago
It's more nuanced than hand-waving away anyone that wants to talk about copyright reform with neo-capitalist 'everyone will choose to be a freeloader' hyperbole. "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay? This represents the difficulty at which we find ourselves straining at the opening of the twenty-first century." --- Eben Moglen, speech he gave in 2003 - refer: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.html http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.htm...
account42 5y ago
The natural state is that yes, you can share everything since, for things that are intended to be experienced by humans, there are no technical restrictions that do not succumb to the analog hole. So yes, not being able to consume everything for free is collateral damage from copyright and thus to justify copyright you need to demonstrate that their is more gained in return. This is why initial copyright terms were much shorter than they are now - because the deal has always been to encourage the production of more content that then becomes part of the commons, i.e. eventually can be consumed by everyone for free.

Fully agree. "collateral damage" just means...why can't I just consume everything for free, as if it's some human right?

by fleddr 5y ago

Fully agree. "collateral damage" just means...why can't I just consume everything for free, as if it's some human right?

amelius 5y ago

Not true in the case of Yt-dl.

rglullis 5y ago

The point is not "consuming things for free", the point is neutering "the Biz". I for one wouldn't mind to lose Hollywood as an industry, or Broadway, or Silicon Valley... All of these industries are way too big and over-influential in all aspects of our lives, and leave us without any chance of a more human-scale alternative to counteract. I mean, how many TV networks are owned by Disney? Do you really think that all that lobbying is just to keep people away from watching copies of Mickey's Fantasia?

throwaway82652 5y ago
This makes no sense. Disney is not stopping you from making your own home movies. You can even put them on YouTube or any of the other alternatives. There's actually lots of good criticisms of Disney, but you didn't mention any of them.
- rglullis 5y ago
  It's not about my own movies that don't get made. It's about all the other movies that don't get to be financed because of the 19th re-hash of Star Wars (or Marvel movie, or live-action remake of Lion King/Aladdin/Pocahontas/Dumbo/Bambi) that is going to be released and it's "guaranteed" to make another billion dollars in the box office. It's about having two small kids who get bombarded with products from their franchises on every media outlet. It's about them using their movies and works to promote whatever ideological propaganda that gets them in favor with government.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    Film funding is not a zero sum game. There are lots of other places to secure funding. I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. The rest of your comment is unrelated and somewhat unhinged, and appears to be going off into a general complaint about advertising, it has nothing to do with copyright.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      > I've seen about 20 new indie films already this year. Good for you! Now go ask the other 99% of the population what they watched this year? > The rest of your comment (...) has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with concentration of power, of which copyright (and any kind of "intellectual property") is one of the favorite instruments from big corporations. I also used to fall for this "people are free to choose" techno-libertarian bullshit. The problem is that it is not in the interest of all the corporations for you to choose responsibly. They make the game so complex and so energy consuming that eventually people break in one way or another. "Copyright enforcement" only benefits the big players and the corporate world.
      - throwaway82652 5y ago
        But that's not true, if you didn't have copyright the biggest one would just copy everything and nobody could do anything about it. With copyright you have a way to sue them for ripping you off.
        rglullis 5y ago
        Or maybe copyright and "intellectual property" is precisely what leads to existing a "bigger one" in the first place?
- JetSpiegel 5y ago
  > Disney is not stopping you from making your own home movies. Excuse me? What if I want to adapt some Hans Christian Andersen story over 150 years old and get a cease and desist from Disney? Even if their adaptations are older than many people alive today.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Why do these corporations get to have functionally infinte state granted monopolies on trivially infinitely copyable data as if it's some basic right?

autoexec 5y ago

It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention.

throwaway82652 5y ago
No, it means almost none of that. Pretty much nothing you said has anything to do with copyright law. This is why I have a problem with this rhetoric, it very frequently goes off the rails towards something that doesn't help the goal at all. > It means people being forced off the internet because of nothing but unproven accusations because they only have one ISP in their area. This is not related to copyright law at all. I agree ISP monopolies are a problem, for any number of reasons. >It means artists who never publish their works because they're afraid of being sued for being a little too close to what someone else did once a century ago. Anyone can sue you anytime for any reason, that doesn't mean they'll win the lawsuit. You could make a good argument here about how copyright law is too long, but that point is lost in the rest of the sentence. >It means creative projects that never get started because while the will is there, the rights needed are impossible to obtain. No, that doesn't make any sense. This is a blatant misunderstanding of copyright that I see so often. Copyright doesn't stop you from creating new projects. You don't need to get the rights if it's a fully original work. You could also make a good argument here about how licensing is too difficult to obtain sometimes but that point is also lost. >It means non-infringing works like youtube-dl get silenced and hidden from the public because they are inconvenient to media giants This never happened. Youtube-dl is still up, if I recall for the short period it was taken down there were like 20 forks that popped up immediately. >It means accepting internet censorship without oversight. This also never happened and is contradictory to everything else you said, your complaint actually seems to be that there's too much oversight. >It means DRM crippled hardware that you but are never allowed to own. This is not related to copyright law. DRM is a purely technical means, not a legal one. >It means DRM crippled software that can never be preserved and archived in a usable format. It means your culture and your history being paywalled off or locked away No, it's not your culture or your history, you're not the author. What everyone misses with these comments is that some authors many not want their works to be preserved or archived. >If you this this is an issue of "I just want free stuff" you clearly haven't been paying attention. There's no coherent issue anywhere else in your reply and there's nothing to pay attention to. I've tried to make these comments constructive so maybe that can guide you towards what your real issue is.

Jedd 5y ago

It's more nuanced than hand-waving away anyone that wants to talk about copyright reform with neo-capitalist 'everyone will choose to be a freeloader' hyperbole. "If you could feed everyone on earth at the cost of baking one loaf and pressing a button, what would be the moral case for charging more for bread than some people could afford to pay? This represents the difficulty at which we find ourselves straining at the opening of the twenty-first century." --- Eben Moglen, speech he gave in 2003 - refer: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.html http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/maine-speech.htm...

account42 5y ago

The natural state is that yes, you can share everything since, for things that are intended to be experienced by humans, there are no technical restrictions that do not succumb to the analog hole. So yes, not being able to consume everything for free is collateral damage from copyright and thus to justify copyright you need to demonstrate that their is more gained in return. This is why initial copyright terms were much shorter than they are now - because the deal has always been to encourage the production of more content that then becomes part of the commons, i.e. eventually can be consumed by everyone for free.