5 ms·

> Even 10 years is too generous. I'd rather make it 0 instead. I said 10 years because it's what would make copyright tolerable. The right thing as far as I'm c

by tivert 4y ago

> Even 10 years is too generous. I'd rather make it 0 instead. I said 10 years because it's what would make copyright tolerable. The right thing as far as I'm concerned is abolishing it straight up. 10 years is a reasonable compromise. That's not a reasonable compromise. Your proposal of 0 years in a nonstarter, and walking slightly back from that is still a nonstarter. It's pretty clear your prioritizing only your own interests and desires, and not even really thinking about anyone else's. For instance: have you considered that abolishing copyright would abolish the GPL, too? As in, you'd have no right to demand the source to modified GPL code that was distributed. The foundation of the GPL is copyright. Copyright was created for good reason. It is not reasonable to get mad and burn it all down without considering those reasons, and the other effects burning it down will cause. > Remember, copyright exists at all because we allow it. The raw reality these monopolists face is that public domain is the default state of all information. We're all just pretending that we can't easily copy this stuff. We're also all pretending that we can't easily kill other people (btw, we totally can, and you probably regularly operate a 3,000lb death machine). > The social contract was: we pretend we don't know how to copy their stuff, they get to make their money and then the works enter the public domain. They're clearly not keeping up their end of the social contract. Why should we? We should all just stop pretending we're dumb enough not to download their stuff at zero cost. They're advocating for their interests, "we've" advocated for ours, so stuff is entering public domain (Steamboat Willie is almost there, and there are no copyright extensions in the works to keep it there). The correct solution is to dial back the previous excesses in term lengths to something long enough that it wouldn't imperil investment in the production of new works (which can be hundreds of millions of dollars per).

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> That's not a reasonable compromise. Your proposal of 0 years in a nonstarter, and walking slightly back from that is still a nonstarter. On the contrary. Copyright itself is a non-starter. Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. They're the ones who need to convince us to respect whatever social contract they seek to impose. They are doing such a horrible job at it that it can be argued that copyright infringement is civil disobedience and a moral imperative. > It's pretty clear your prioritizing your own interests, and not even really thinking about anyone else's. I am. I don't really care about the "interests" of some perpetual information monopolists at all. The fact they even exist at all is offensive to me. I'd rather they didn't. > For instance, have you considered that abolishing copyright would abolish the GPL? As in, you'd have no right to demand the source to modified GPL code that was distributed. Yeah. See my other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35703409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35703409 > Copyright was created for good reason. It is not reasonable to get mad and burn it all down without considering those reasons, and the other effects burning it down will cause. The reasons don't matter. The actual implementation does. That's why 10 years is an exceptionally generous compromise. It's the only thing that would allow these monopolists to continue existing. If that's rejected, the only reasonable alternative is for society to stop recognizing copyright as legitimate and go back to treating everything as public domain by default. The social contract was: we'd pretend we couldn't copy this stuff, you'd make your money for a while and then your work would enter the public domain. You and I are both gonna be long dead before we see any of those public domain benefits and that's if they don't keep perpetually extending the duration into functional infinity. Clearly they're not keeping up their end of the contract. So why should we keep ours? > We're also all pretending that we can't easily kill other people (btw, we totally can, and you probably regularly operate a 3,000lb death machine). You're seriously comparing the killing of human beings to the copying of bits. I'm not sure I want to continue this debate.
- Entinel 4y ago
  > On the contrary. Copyright itself is a non-starter. Clearly it is given that we are currently living with it.
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    On the contrary. Copyright infringement is the norm. People infringe copyrights all day every day and they don't even realize it. You infringe copyright every single time you "save as" a picture you like from the internet. You infringe it again if you send that picture to your family and friends via a messaging service. Made a funny meme? It's a derivative work, copyright infringement. It's the 21st century, all of this is normal and expected, it happens at massive scales and not a single person loses a second of sleep over any of it. It boggles my mind that people think they can own and control this stuff. Think of the tyranny necessary to prevent that and enable something as archaic as copyright to work in the 21st century. You'd have to destroy computers as we know them today. You'd have to destroy our computing freedoms and everything the word "hacker" stands for to achieve such a dystopia. You'd have to turn computers into passive content consumption appliances fully owned by corporations.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. Nah, decaying is the natural state of information. It requires non-trivial effort to keep information available for reading and interpreting. Even paper, one of the best mediums for storing data over time, decomposes if not actively protected.
  - unaindz 4y ago
    What does this have to do with anything? Libraries handle the preserving and sharing to the public of information. In spite of copyright, not thanks to it. Historically they literally copied one book into paper to duplicate/preserve it. That would be copyright infringement now. And more recently copyright holders are trying to delete any archives that could be used for that purpose like the internet archive or LibGen. In other media we have game roms and copies of shows being illegal. Same treatment if it has been a week since release or it's been 20 years and you can't get it legally from anywhere.
mitchdoogle 4y ago
What are the "good reasons" you speak of? It seems like the primary purpose of copyright is to help enrich individuals or corporations (and only the ones who have the resources to fight legal battles). Most people on the Internet completely ignore copyright in their everyday life. And most of the time, nobody really cares, not even the owners of the copyright.

by tivert 4y ago

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> That's not a reasonable compromise. Your proposal of 0 years in a nonstarter, and walking slightly back from that is still a nonstarter. On the contrary. Copyright itself is a non-starter. Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. They're the ones who need to convince us to respect whatever social contract they seek to impose. They are doing such a horrible job at it that it can be argued that copyright infringement is civil disobedience and a moral imperative. > It's pretty clear your prioritizing your own interests, and not even really thinking about anyone else's. I am. I don't really care about the "interests" of some perpetual information monopolists at all. The fact they even exist at all is offensive to me. I'd rather they didn't. > For instance, have you considered that abolishing copyright would abolish the GPL? As in, you'd have no right to demand the source to modified GPL code that was distributed. Yeah. See my other post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35703409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35703409 > Copyright was created for good reason. It is not reasonable to get mad and burn it all down without considering those reasons, and the other effects burning it down will cause. The reasons don't matter. The actual implementation does. That's why 10 years is an exceptionally generous compromise. It's the only thing that would allow these monopolists to continue existing. If that's rejected, the only reasonable alternative is for society to stop recognizing copyright as legitimate and go back to treating everything as public domain by default. The social contract was: we'd pretend we couldn't copy this stuff, you'd make your money for a while and then your work would enter the public domain. You and I are both gonna be long dead before we see any of those public domain benefits and that's if they don't keep perpetually extending the duration into functional infinity. Clearly they're not keeping up their end of the contract. So why should we keep ours? > We're also all pretending that we can't easily kill other people (btw, we totally can, and you probably regularly operate a 3,000lb death machine). You're seriously comparing the killing of human beings to the copying of bits. I'm not sure I want to continue this debate.

Entinel 4y ago
> On the contrary. Copyright itself is a non-starter. Clearly it is given that we are currently living with it.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  On the contrary. Copyright infringement is the norm. People infringe copyrights all day every day and they don't even realize it. You infringe copyright every single time you "save as" a picture you like from the internet. You infringe it again if you send that picture to your family and friends via a messaging service. Made a funny meme? It's a derivative work, copyright infringement. It's the 21st century, all of this is normal and expected, it happens at massive scales and not a single person loses a second of sleep over any of it. It boggles my mind that people think they can own and control this stuff. Think of the tyranny necessary to prevent that and enable something as archaic as copyright to work in the 21st century. You'd have to destroy computers as we know them today. You'd have to destroy our computing freedoms and everything the word "hacker" stands for to achieve such a dystopia. You'd have to turn computers into passive content consumption appliances fully owned by corporations.
falcolas 4y ago
> Remember, public domain is the natural state of information. Nah, decaying is the natural state of information. It requires non-trivial effort to keep information available for reading and interpreting. Even paper, one of the best mediums for storing data over time, decomposes if not actively protected.
- unaindz 4y ago
  What does this have to do with anything? Libraries handle the preserving and sharing to the public of information. In spite of copyright, not thanks to it. Historically they literally copied one book into paper to duplicate/preserve it. That would be copyright infringement now. And more recently copyright holders are trying to delete any archives that could be used for that purpose like the internet archive or LibGen. In other media we have game roms and copies of shows being illegal. Same treatment if it has been a week since release or it's been 20 years and you can't get it legally from anywhere.

mitchdoogle 4y ago

What are the "good reasons" you speak of? It seems like the primary purpose of copyright is to help enrich individuals or corporations (and only the ones who have the resources to fight legal battles). Most people on the Internet completely ignore copyright in their everyday life. And most of the time, nobody really cares, not even the owners of the copyright.