5 ms·

The other reason is because people continue to infringe upon their rights. If people stopped taking what's not theirs, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to

The other reason is because people continue to infringe upon their rights. If people stopped taking what's not theirs, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to spend time on this legislation.

VladRussian 15y ago
the key here is a supposed right for secure piracy-free distribution. Providing for such a right seems to place a heavy burden on society in exchange for which the society is supposed to get some benefits. About benefits - does it mean that the human race would be less creative and inventive (or even stop to create and invent) without the copyright protection?
chc 15y ago
Not so. People spend time on this legislation because the lobbyists encourage them to, and the lobbyists encourage them because that's what the AAs pay them to do. And the AAs don't just want to make sure people don't take content illegally, they want to make new laws so that previously legal uses become illegal (e.g. no ripping DVDs, must buy a new copy for every device).
younata 15y ago
People have been breaking copyright law for ages. The only thing that has changed is that it's easier to break copyright law. It's a trade-off really. As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law. The argument against this law is that it's better to have content be easier to create and distribute, and worth the trade-off.
- vannevar 15y ago
  As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law. You also make copyright law itself less necessary. Its primary purpose is not to protect authors and creators, but rather to incentivize distributors. That's where all the cost and risk was when copyright originated. Now that distribution costs have dropped to nearly nothing, there is little necessity for copyright.
  - jerf 15y ago
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors.
    - VladRussian 15y ago
      The copyright make sense only in connection with distribution. Without the very act of distribution (like exhibiting or selling of the work), the copyright doesn't make sense as nobody would know the content of the work. You can create or invent without any risk of copyright infringement (and thus without any need for the notion of copyright) as long as you don't attempt the distribution.
    - slowpoke 15y ago
      >I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors. Then I guess you have not been in this discussion for very long, or never paid attention. The fact is, copyright was never meant for creators. It was invented by distributors for distributors. The first copyright law was a censorship law to limit the amount of books printed when the printing press was was getting widely available in England that gave a total monopoly on publishing to a guild of publishers, without even attributing a book to the original author, but instead to the guild member who registered the book, attaining its newly invented "copyright". You know what's the funniest thing about this? The content industry hails this as a stepping stone for authors and their rights, and what's worse, the public believes them. It's a lie, simple as that. Authors never asked for copyright. There was no collective push to stop the copying of their works. On the contrary, they wanted their works to be read. The internet has made copyright obsolete. Moreso, it has made it harmful, and it needs to go away. The internet's here to stay. Copyright, by any means, isn't.
      - uriel 15y ago
        Everyone should read this post, the origins of copyright are very enlightening when trying to understand the insane system we have now. Intellectual property is system of monopolies inherently incompatible with a competitive, creative and innovative free market, how the IP-industry managed to turn this argument around in the minds of most people is truly scary.
- mparr4 15y ago
  It's also easier now to block (and punish) "copyright infringers", which gives a scary authority to those who get to define that term.
lurker17 15y ago
"taking". Antagonizing content consumers may be counterproductive to your efforts to convert them into customers.
theDoug 15y ago
It's not taking. There is a subtle but _clear_ reason it's considered infringement and not theft.
ori_b 15y ago
We already have laws to deal with this. Skipping the court system shouldn't be part of the deal.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
beedogs 15y ago
When copyright is rolled back to 28 years, I'll stop "taking" content. As it stands now, the "rights" to said content outlive that content's creators by nearly a century.
- tomlin 15y ago
  Netflix has convinced me that I won't pirate if I don't have to. In fact, if Netflix had everything that premium movie networks in Canada offered, I doubt I would download any movie ever. Unfortunately, in Canada, the government is protecting our cable networks and limiting companies like Netflix. This protectionism is lazy because it doesn't ask these providers to advance to what Netflix provides (ie, complimentary streaming with cable subscription), it asks the Canadian citizen to "not worry about it" - effectively leaving Canadians with less options in the guise of "protecting thousands of jobs". Regulators say, "Well, since they don't get Netflix like the US, they'll keep their cable subscriptions." But instead, we're lowering our cable packages and pirating as needed. So the cable companies try to squeeze our bandwidth down to ridiculous per GB rates so we won't download. Luckily, the backlash was strong enough to hold rate limiting off - for now. Downloading torrents isn't a huge technical feat. And setting up automated processes to download your favorite tv shows and movies is becoming easier and easier. If Rogers or Bell just built the technology necessary to compete with Netflix, Netflix wouldn't have enough advantage over cable (broadband + cable is more convenient than broadband + cable + Netflix + Netflix compatible device).

The other reason is because people continue to infringe upon their rights. If people stopped taking what's not theirs, you'd have a hard time getting anyone to spend time on this legislation.

VladRussian 15y ago

the key here is a supposed right for secure piracy-free distribution. Providing for such a right seems to place a heavy burden on society in exchange for which the society is supposed to get some benefits. About benefits - does it mean that the human race would be less creative and inventive (or even stop to create and invent) without the copyright protection?

chc 15y ago

Not so. People spend time on this legislation because the lobbyists encourage them to, and the lobbyists encourage them because that's what the AAs pay them to do. And the AAs don't just want to make sure people don't take content illegally, they want to make new laws so that previously legal uses become illegal (e.g. no ripping DVDs, must buy a new copy for every device).

younata 15y ago

People have been breaking copyright law for ages. The only thing that has changed is that it's easier to break copyright law. It's a trade-off really. As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law. The argument against this law is that it's better to have content be easier to create and distribute, and worth the trade-off.

vannevar 15y ago
As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law. You also make copyright law itself less necessary. Its primary purpose is not to protect authors and creators, but rather to incentivize distributors. That's where all the cost and risk was when copyright originated. Now that distribution costs have dropped to nearly nothing, there is little necessity for copyright.
- jerf 15y ago
  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors.
  - VladRussian 15y ago
    The copyright make sense only in connection with distribution. Without the very act of distribution (like exhibiting or selling of the work), the copyright doesn't make sense as nobody would know the content of the work. You can create or invent without any risk of copyright infringement (and thus without any need for the notion of copyright) as long as you don't attempt the distribution.
  - slowpoke 15y ago
    >I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors. Then I guess you have not been in this discussion for very long, or never paid attention. The fact is, copyright was never meant for creators. It was invented by distributors for distributors. The first copyright law was a censorship law to limit the amount of books printed when the printing press was was getting widely available in England that gave a total monopoly on publishing to a guild of publishers, without even attributing a book to the original author, but instead to the guild member who registered the book, attaining its newly invented "copyright". You know what's the funniest thing about this? The content industry hails this as a stepping stone for authors and their rights, and what's worse, the public believes them. It's a lie, simple as that. Authors never asked for copyright. There was no collective push to stop the copying of their works. On the contrary, they wanted their works to be read. The internet has made copyright obsolete. Moreso, it has made it harmful, and it needs to go away. The internet's here to stay. Copyright, by any means, isn't.
    - uriel 15y ago
      Everyone should read this post, the origins of copyright are very enlightening when trying to understand the insane system we have now. Intellectual property is system of monopolies inherently incompatible with a competitive, creative and innovative free market, how the IP-industry managed to turn this argument around in the minds of most people is truly scary.
mparr4 15y ago
It's also easier now to block (and punish) "copyright infringers", which gives a scary authority to those who get to define that term.

lurker17 15y ago

"taking". Antagonizing content consumers may be counterproductive to your efforts to convert them into customers.

theDoug 15y ago

It's not taking. There is a subtle but _clear_ reason it's considered infringement and not theft.

ori_b 15y ago

We already have laws to deal with this. Skipping the court system shouldn't be part of the deal.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

beedogs 15y ago

When copyright is rolled back to 28 years, I'll stop "taking" content. As it stands now, the "rights" to said content outlive that content's creators by nearly a century.

tomlin 15y ago
Netflix has convinced me that I won't pirate if I don't have to. In fact, if Netflix had everything that premium movie networks in Canada offered, I doubt I would download any movie ever. Unfortunately, in Canada, the government is protecting our cable networks and limiting companies like Netflix. This protectionism is lazy because it doesn't ask these providers to advance to what Netflix provides (ie, complimentary streaming with cable subscription), it asks the Canadian citizen to "not worry about it" - effectively leaving Canadians with less options in the guise of "protecting thousands of jobs". Regulators say, "Well, since they don't get Netflix like the US, they'll keep their cable subscriptions." But instead, we're lowering our cable packages and pirating as needed. So the cable companies try to squeeze our bandwidth down to ridiculous per GB rates so we won't download. Luckily, the backlash was strong enough to hold rate limiting off - for now. Downloading torrents isn't a huge technical feat. And setting up automated processes to download your favorite tv shows and movies is becoming easier and easier. If Rogers or Bell just built the technology necessary to compete with Netflix, Netflix wouldn't have enough advantage over cable (broadband + cable is more convenient than broadband + cable + Netflix + Netflix compatible device).