4 ms·

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

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.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > Now everyone has globally networked computers which make copyright infringement so trivial people don't even realize they're doing it. So because a law is easier to break that means it’s not relevant? You really think that most people who are going to bit torrent don’t know they are breaking the law? Even if that were the case “ignorance is no excuse”. I can walk down the street if any major city and get crack and pay a prostitute to let me smoke it on her ass. Just because it’s “easy” doesn’t mean it’s legal. Copyright dates back to the 15th century shortly after the invention of the printing press - meaning almost since the inception of technology that allowed copying media, government thought there was a reason to protect content creators. > Not even once did I claim there was a monopoly on any creative process. I claimed there was a monopoly on copying That’s an even worse take on what “monopoly” means
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    > So because a law is easier to break that means it’s not relevant? Yes? What is the relevance of a law pretty much everybody breaks, many times without even realizing it? When people download random pictures and videos via the internet, it's copyright infringement. When my family and friends send me those pictures or post them to social media, it's copyright infringement. When people share books with each other via messaging groups it's infringement. At this point it should no longer be a crime but a custom. What is the relevance of a law that requires literal tyranny to enforce? Because that's what copyright enforcement in the 21st century looks like. To enforce copyright you need to destroy free computing as we know it. You need to destroy everything a site like Hacker News stands for. The technology to do it will pave the way for even worse abuses such as the regulation of encryption and control of communications. Computers are world changing technology. Why should their potential be crippled for the sake of creators and their obsolete business models? > Copyright dates back to the 15th century shortly after the invention of the printing press - meaning almost since the inception of technology that allowed copying media, government thought there was a reason to protect content creators. So does public domain. Even the US constitution says that these exclusive rights are "time limited". Funny how every single time it's this narrative about the creators and their protection and their profits. Everyone forgets that eventually their works are supposed to become literal public property after a set number of years. Copyright lasts so long now that the very concept of public domain might as well have been erased from public consciousness.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      95 years is “time limited” you may not like the time.
      - matheusmoreira 4y ago
        Yeah right. 1000 years is technically time limited, you may not like it but that's life buddy! Just accept our rent seeking and pay us our royalties for a thousand years because our grand grand grand children need to live comfortably off of the works. What a load of total BS. We're doing them a favor by granting them artificial scarcity at all. We can easily make it last 0 years if we want. We have the technology.

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.

scarface74 4y ago
> Now everyone has globally networked computers which make copyright infringement so trivial people don't even realize they're doing it. So because a law is easier to break that means it’s not relevant? You really think that most people who are going to bit torrent don’t know they are breaking the law? Even if that were the case “ignorance is no excuse”. I can walk down the street if any major city and get crack and pay a prostitute to let me smoke it on her ass. Just because it’s “easy” doesn’t mean it’s legal. Copyright dates back to the 15th century shortly after the invention of the printing press - meaning almost since the inception of technology that allowed copying media, government thought there was a reason to protect content creators. > Not even once did I claim there was a monopoly on any creative process. I claimed there was a monopoly on copying That’s an even worse take on what “monopoly” means
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  > So because a law is easier to break that means it’s not relevant? Yes? What is the relevance of a law pretty much everybody breaks, many times without even realizing it? When people download random pictures and videos via the internet, it's copyright infringement. When my family and friends send me those pictures or post them to social media, it's copyright infringement. When people share books with each other via messaging groups it's infringement. At this point it should no longer be a crime but a custom. What is the relevance of a law that requires literal tyranny to enforce? Because that's what copyright enforcement in the 21st century looks like. To enforce copyright you need to destroy free computing as we know it. You need to destroy everything a site like Hacker News stands for. The technology to do it will pave the way for even worse abuses such as the regulation of encryption and control of communications. Computers are world changing technology. Why should their potential be crippled for the sake of creators and their obsolete business models? > Copyright dates back to the 15th century shortly after the invention of the printing press - meaning almost since the inception of technology that allowed copying media, government thought there was a reason to protect content creators. So does public domain. Even the US constitution says that these exclusive rights are "time limited". Funny how every single time it's this narrative about the creators and their protection and their profits. Everyone forgets that eventually their works are supposed to become literal public property after a set number of years. Copyright lasts so long now that the very concept of public domain might as well have been erased from public consciousness.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    95 years is “time limited” you may not like the time.
    - matheusmoreira 4y ago
      Yeah right. 1000 years is technically time limited, you may not like it but that's life buddy! Just accept our rent seeking and pay us our royalties for a thousand years because our grand grand grand children need to live comfortably off of the works. What a load of total BS. We're doing them a favor by granting them artificial scarcity at all. We can easily make it last 0 years if we want. We have the technology.