6 ms·

> How is it their right to hold a functionally infinite state granted monopoly on easily copied information? It's their right because we've decided as a societ

> How is it their right to hold a functionally infinite state granted monopoly on easily copied information? It's their right because we've decided as a society that it's often useful for people to have that right. There's no physical reason that knockoff publishers couldn't have printed dirt-cheap paper copies of Harry Potter as the books came out, but I think things ended up better without them being allowed to do that. > How is it their right to push back the expiration date on their copyrights ... [and] to abuse DMCA takedown These are a completely separate issue, and are less so "rights" than "practices which powerful players do and sometimes get away with".

collegeburner 4y ago
ngl me personally i never pay for media (except very rarely a good book i want for my shelf after reading it). if i can't pirate something i just don't consume it. like, there's so much media now no single piece is worth that much. in other words nobody is losing out on anything because i pirate. the alternative (which sometimes happens when i can't find it) is they still get nothing. i don't think people realize how much they spend on media, like lots of my friends are spending $25/mo on video streaming plus another $10 for music. like sports? add espn, another $10. like ufc? add more for pay per view. big reader? another $20/month easy. read lots of news? they all want "just" $10/month or whatever even though most people aren't reading all of one paper like they used to, just a few articles from each. am i gonna spend $700/yr for media? hell naw.
- scarface74 4y ago
  But you value it enough to pirate it. If it was of no value to you, then why pirata it?
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    i mean i got really good at piracy as a kid so it's easy. i value it somewhere between the sale price ($10 or whatever) and what i'd pay (idk $1?). like, i don't feel like i'd pay more than $5-10 a month for all my media, it's just not worth more than that to me. because tbh i'm not a huge media consumer (mostly music and books, and a lot of that is old stuff i already have). so anything priced more than the percentage of my media consumption it represents times like $5 isn't worth it to buy. so if i can pirate it i do, nobody loses. if i can't i just don't consume the media.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      You’re not a huge “media consumer” yet you consume media you pirate?
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> It's their right because we've decided as a society that it's often useful for people to have that right. > These are a completely separate issue No! The original social contract was we'd all pretend their stuff wasn't easily copyable for a few years so they could turn a profit and then it would enter the public domain. Not only is it obvious that they have zero intention of keeping up their end of the bargain, they keep stretching out those few years into functional limitlessness. About 5 years is more than enough for these creators to make their money back and then some, but we're all going to be dead before the works we grew up with become part of the public domain. So why should we recognize copyright as legitimate? It's not. It's just monopolists and rent seekers and there is absolutely no reason for us to accept any of this BS.
- scarface74 4y ago
  This was never the “social contract”. From the beginning of VHS tapes and at home distribution, there was Macrovision. When copyright was made the law, there was no method of mass consumer distribution. Also, as usual HN wannabee lawyers have no idea what a “monopoly” is. There is no “monopoly” on creating video content. You can in fact do it from your phone
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > This was never the “social contract”. How could it not be? Public domain is centuries old. > From the beginning of VHS tapes and at home distribution, there was Macrovision. So what...? > When copyright was made the law, there was no method of mass consumer distribution. Yeah, and that's the only reason why copyright even made any sense. You had to own things like printing presses in order to infringe copyright at any meaningful scale. Now everyone has globally networked computers which make copyright infringement so trivial people don't even realize they're doing it. > Also, as usual HN wannabee lawyers have no idea what a “monopoly” is. > There is no “monopoly” on creating video content. You're not even replying to my actual point, you're inventing a strawman to disprove so you can call me a "wannabe lawyer". Not even once did I claim there was a monopoly on any creative process. I claimed there was a monopoly on copying. That's what copyright means, it's literally right in there in the name: creators get a time limited monopoly on the ability to make copies of their work.

collegeburner 4y ago

ngl me personally i never pay for media (except very rarely a good book i want for my shelf after reading it). if i can't pirate something i just don't consume it. like, there's so much media now no single piece is worth that much. in other words nobody is losing out on anything because i pirate. the alternative (which sometimes happens when i can't find it) is they still get nothing. i don't think people realize how much they spend on media, like lots of my friends are spending $25/mo on video streaming plus another $10 for music. like sports? add espn, another $10. like ufc? add more for pay per view. big reader? another $20/month easy. read lots of news? they all want "just" $10/month or whatever even though most people aren't reading all of one paper like they used to, just a few articles from each. am i gonna spend $700/yr for media? hell naw.

scarface74 4y ago
But you value it enough to pirate it. If it was of no value to you, then why pirata it?
- collegeburner 4y ago
  i mean i got really good at piracy as a kid so it's easy. i value it somewhere between the sale price ($10 or whatever) and what i'd pay (idk $1?). like, i don't feel like i'd pay more than $5-10 a month for all my media, it's just not worth more than that to me. because tbh i'm not a huge media consumer (mostly music and books, and a lot of that is old stuff i already have). so anything priced more than the percentage of my media consumption it represents times like $5 isn't worth it to buy. so if i can pirate it i do, nobody loses. if i can't i just don't consume the media.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    You’re not a huge “media consumer” yet you consume media you pirate?

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> It's their right because we've decided as a society that it's often useful for people to have that right. > These are a completely separate issue No! The original social contract was we'd all pretend their stuff wasn't easily copyable for a few years so they could turn a profit and then it would enter the public domain. Not only is it obvious that they have zero intention of keeping up their end of the bargain, they keep stretching out those few years into functional limitlessness. About 5 years is more than enough for these creators to make their money back and then some, but we're all going to be dead before the works we grew up with become part of the public domain. So why should we recognize copyright as legitimate? It's not. It's just monopolists and rent seekers and there is absolutely no reason for us to accept any of this BS.

scarface74 4y ago
This was never the “social contract”. From the beginning of VHS tapes and at home distribution, there was Macrovision. When copyright was made the law, there was no method of mass consumer distribution. Also, as usual HN wannabee lawyers have no idea what a “monopoly” is. There is no “monopoly” on creating video content. You can in fact do it from your phone
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > This was never the “social contract”. How could it not be? Public domain is centuries old. > From the beginning of VHS tapes and at home distribution, there was Macrovision. So what...? > When copyright was made the law, there was no method of mass consumer distribution. Yeah, and that's the only reason why copyright even made any sense. You had to own things like printing presses in order to infringe copyright at any meaningful scale. Now everyone has globally networked computers which make copyright infringement so trivial people don't even realize they're doing it. > Also, as usual HN wannabee lawyers have no idea what a “monopoly” is. > There is no “monopoly” on creating video content. You're not even replying to my actual point, you're inventing a strawman to disprove so you can call me a "wannabe lawyer". Not even once did I claim there was a monopoly on any creative process. I claimed there was a monopoly on copying. That's what copyright means, it's literally right in there in the name: creators get a time limited monopoly on the ability to make copies of their work.