19 ms·

I'm disappointed to see the destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise) being lauded on HN. The RIAA and MPAA make deals with artists to distrib

by javert 15y ago

I'm disappointed to see the destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise) being lauded on HN. The RIAA and MPAA make deals with artists to distribute their music, and you want to interfere and just steal it instead. It's dishonest, it's juvenile, and it's eroding at the basis of society (equality under the law, property rights, basic respect and goodwill towards others, etc.).

mrebus 15y ago
Just because you use the word property doesn't make intellectual monopolies property.
- javert 15y ago
  If you don't like the words, good, go look at the moral foundation that underlies the idea. It is a fact of reality that it is morally right to give people ownership rights for things they produce (besides, again, being the basis of society). And why not? Paying for something rather than stealing it (or changing the law so it's not officially "stealing" anymore), just isn't that big of a deal.
  - rwmj 15y ago
    A "fact of reality", like physics? You need to justify your arguments using logic, not incredible assertions.
    - javert 15y ago
      Yes, precisely, like physics. I can't justify that claim on HN, for the same reason I can't prove the contents of Physics 101 on HN. If you're curious about my claims, you'll have to go investigate more on your own.
      - fl3tch 15y ago
        > It is a fact of reality that it is morally right to give people ownership rights > precisely, like physics. There is no place in the universe where the laws of physics do not apply, however there were and are societies without a notion of property, much less the moral right to property, thus property rights are nothing like the laws of physics. They are a product of your provincial worldview. Of course, property is a useful human invention, but it's nothing more than that.
      - tikhonj 15y ago
        While in some deep (and silly) sense you can't prove the laws of physics, the whole point of science is that the scientific method lets us confidently infer that the laws of physics are a good model for reality through experiments. So in that sense, you can "prove" them, and people have. There is no similar justification for copyright, and claiming copyright as an axiom proves nothing.
      - polymatter 15y ago
        In the case that I am not replying to a troll, can you provide any links or references? If I wanted to research your point of view, where should I begin? You may not be able to prove Physics 101 on HN, but you could link you to Feynman's lectures on Physics which would get the interested layman started. That's the sort of thing I'm asking for, for this pro-IP viewpoint.
        javert 15y ago
        I'm an Objectivist, i.e., I agree with Ayn Rand. Here is a good reading list: [1]. Honestly, IP rights aren't a special case (setting aside patents, which isn't the topic of this thread); they're straightforward if you understand AR's theory of rights and property. Another good reference is [2], but since AR's claims are hierarchial, you can't get the "whole story" very well from just looking up some specific topic. [1] http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_sugread http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_... [2] http://aynrandlexicon.com/ http://aynrandlexicon.com/ Feel free to get in touch if you want to follow up.
        18pfsmt 15y ago
        If you were the only person left on the earth, copyrights wouldn't matter anymore. You can't say the same for the laws of physics.
        javert 15y ago
        True. I'm not saying that property rights are the same as physics.
        Lockyy 15y ago
        "javert 1 day ago | link Yes, precisely, like physics." But you are.
  - alextgordon 15y ago
    The kind of copyright you're talking about was invented ~400 years ago. There are buildings near me older than that.
  - Travis 15y ago
    I'm not sure I've seen anything like the phrase, "fact of reality that it is morally right" outside of a religious context.
natesm 15y ago
Unlimited copyright terms are eroding the basis of society (the Constitution). 5 to 10 years would be reasonable.
- javert 15y ago
  Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? Please don't take the sarcasm personally; it was just the best way to illustrate my point.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Which part is the sarcasm?
  - 18pfsmt 15y ago
    It's actually quite interesting to think about with respect to real property. For example, many Native American tribes couldn't conceive of the idea that one person could own the land; it simply didn't match their mental model. As a result, they ended up ceding, practically, the entire lower 48 states to the European immigrants.
    - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
      That's not quite true. Understanding the Native Americans from an anthropological point of view indicated the Land owned them. The Land provided food, water, shelter, warmth, entertainment, animals, and other things. The trade of Manhattan for wampum beads is a perfect example: The European thought he got a killer deal because an island was worth far more than those beads. The Native thought, 'the land will be here after he dies, as he belongs to the land'. The native got a better deal because it wasn't a trade. Native Americans of all the tribes had a very strong sense of ownership. If that was not the case, the Natives would have not signed treaties indicating that this is "X's territory". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp
VMG 15y ago
What is fascinating to me is the hypocrisy. Most HNers probably believe some sort of property rights for software (or even blog designs). May here would argue that the GPL is a great license and violators should be punished. You can also often read that Hollywood and the Music Industry are producing worthless crap, but yet The Pirate Bay is dominated by commercial entertainment, not by Creative Commons content. Much of it is certainly an emotional reaction to the aggressive behavior of RIAA/MPAA, but it really is sad to see so little capacity to see things from a different perspective.
- chc 15y ago
  I think it is a reaction to the copyright cartel, but not necessarily an emotional one. The cartel's position is crazy enough and harmful enough that I'm much closer to being on TPB's side than theirs. The enemy of my enemy. Similarly, if a rabid bear got loose in my house, I might temporarily befriend someone who I'd caught taking from my wallet — my interests align more with the thief's than the rabid bear's.
- inchcombec 15y ago
  I really don't see much/any hypocrisy in the comments I've read. There aren't exactly many people just saying "Pirate ALL the things!". There are legitimate reasons to be concerned by these constant attempts to attack certain technology or websites. Personally, I think that having a society that thinks that censorship is a good way to deal with ideas you dislike, which is where we're heading if this keeps up, is a lot more dangerous than intellectual property theft. Hell, it has been known for years that certain ISPs even go as far as to throttle ALL bittorrent traffic and despite what the MPAA would like people to believe some of the bittorrent use is perfectly legal. World of Warcraft actually uses bittorrent for their patches. As well, there are the facts that: -Laws have been passed that are so excessive in punishment that judges are actually slashing the penalties, and there are even stronger laws that lobbyists are trying to get passed. -This idea of protecting intellectual property at all costs has led to modern electronics devices being very rigidly controlled to the point that if you try to modify YOUR device to just install linux or something, you might be a criminal. -Copyright lasts a ridiculously long time. There should definitely be some rights so that the creator can benefit, but almost a century is too long.
burgerbrain 15y ago
Has it occurred to you that to many people the issue may not be piracy? I don't use the pirate bay, nor do I endorse copyright infringement, but this development nevertheless greatly concerns me. No, I suspect it has not.
- javert 15y ago
  I was responding to the parent of my comment, not to the article. Anyway, thanks for being a dick!
nileshtrivedi 15y ago
Well, at least some of us are against RIAA and MPAA, not because we want to steal their stuff, but because they are trying to kill our technologies and tools - which have fair, legal and genuine uses as well. They brought DMCA, made reverse-engineering illegal (even if no infringement happened), pushed for SOPA and are willing to go even further.
gitarr 15y ago
I am a musician who would never deal with RIAA, instead we put both our albums on The Pirate Bay to download and spread for free. Now I cannot link to those albums in Microsoft software because they censor all links? That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes society not the sharing and copying of files.
- bostonvaulter2 15y ago
  Can you link them here?
  - gitarr 15y ago
    No, this nick is private and privacy is what i want to keep in this case.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - bostonvaulter2 15y ago
      Fair enough
- javert 15y ago
  I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA). That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech. You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech.
muuh-gnu 15y ago
> destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise) These are not the same. Most people do not support the concept of "intellectual property". But for a property to exist in practice, you need majority support, otherwise your property is either just imaginary or you need a totalitarian police state to enforce it. > the basis of society The concept of imaginary property is neither supported by a majority of population not in any other way democratically backed. Nobody on this planet has ever voted on it. From its early beginnings, it has been enforced from the top down, decided in shady deals behind closed doors between corrupt officials and industry stake holders and then enforced against the majority. > steal it To steal it, you must first reckognize that it is somebody else's property first. But what if you dont consider it property in the first place?
cowkingdeluxe 15y ago
DMCA is more than enough protection than the RIAA and MPAA should ever need. Instead they are going over board and trying to get more and more control.
temphn 15y ago
The products of the RIAA and MPAA generally undermine property rights (viz. "F the Police"). Now that they are the ones being f'd, they turn to the people who respect property rights to protect them. No sale, they deserve to pass into the ash heap of history.
zotz 15y ago
P2P is here to stay. RIAA and MPAA aren't. It's not a destruction of property rights. It's the beginning of something new for people that make a living creating things people like to hear and watch. Speaking as a musician who has had dealings with the RIAA, I won't miss them even one little bit.
- javert 15y ago
  P2P is here to stay. I would not be so sure about that. As computer people, we rely on governmental freedom to do what we do, and the politicians and the guys with guns can and will take that away if we stop defending freedom. Which we aren't doing very effectively lately.

by javert 15y ago

mrebus 15y ago

Just because you use the word property doesn't make intellectual monopolies property.

javert 15y ago
If you don't like the words, good, go look at the moral foundation that underlies the idea. It is a fact of reality that it is morally right to give people ownership rights for things they produce (besides, again, being the basis of society). And why not? Paying for something rather than stealing it (or changing the law so it's not officially "stealing" anymore), just isn't that big of a deal.
- rwmj 15y ago
  A "fact of reality", like physics? You need to justify your arguments using logic, not incredible assertions.
  - javert 15y ago
    Yes, precisely, like physics. I can't justify that claim on HN, for the same reason I can't prove the contents of Physics 101 on HN. If you're curious about my claims, you'll have to go investigate more on your own.
    - fl3tch 15y ago
      > It is a fact of reality that it is morally right to give people ownership rights > precisely, like physics. There is no place in the universe where the laws of physics do not apply, however there were and are societies without a notion of property, much less the moral right to property, thus property rights are nothing like the laws of physics. They are a product of your provincial worldview. Of course, property is a useful human invention, but it's nothing more than that.
    - tikhonj 15y ago
      While in some deep (and silly) sense you can't prove the laws of physics, the whole point of science is that the scientific method lets us confidently infer that the laws of physics are a good model for reality through experiments. So in that sense, you can "prove" them, and people have. There is no similar justification for copyright, and claiming copyright as an axiom proves nothing.
    - polymatter 15y ago
      In the case that I am not replying to a troll, can you provide any links or references? If I wanted to research your point of view, where should I begin? You may not be able to prove Physics 101 on HN, but you could link you to Feynman's lectures on Physics which would get the interested layman started. That's the sort of thing I'm asking for, for this pro-IP viewpoint.
      - javert 15y ago
        I'm an Objectivist, i.e., I agree with Ayn Rand. Here is a good reading list: [1]. Honestly, IP rights aren't a special case (setting aside patents, which isn't the topic of this thread); they're straightforward if you understand AR's theory of rights and property. Another good reference is [2], but since AR's claims are hierarchial, you can't get the "whole story" very well from just looking up some specific topic. [1] http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_sugread http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_... [2] http://aynrandlexicon.com/ http://aynrandlexicon.com/ Feel free to get in touch if you want to follow up.
        18pfsmt 15y ago
        If you were the only person left on the earth, copyrights wouldn't matter anymore. You can't say the same for the laws of physics.
        javert 15y ago
        True. I'm not saying that property rights are the same as physics.
        Lockyy 15y ago
        "javert 1 day ago | link Yes, precisely, like physics." But you are.
- alextgordon 15y ago
  The kind of copyright you're talking about was invented ~400 years ago. There are buildings near me older than that.
- Travis 15y ago
  I'm not sure I've seen anything like the phrase, "fact of reality that it is morally right" outside of a religious context.

natesm 15y ago

Unlimited copyright terms are eroding the basis of society (the Constitution). 5 to 10 years would be reasonable.

javert 15y ago
Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have. I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years. Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years? Please don't take the sarcasm personally; it was just the best way to illustrate my point.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Which part is the sarcasm?
- 18pfsmt 15y ago
  It's actually quite interesting to think about with respect to real property. For example, many Native American tribes couldn't conceive of the idea that one person could own the land; it simply didn't match their mental model. As a result, they ended up ceding, practically, the entire lower 48 states to the European immigrants.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    That's not quite true. Understanding the Native Americans from an anthropological point of view indicated the Land owned them. The Land provided food, water, shelter, warmth, entertainment, animals, and other things. The trade of Manhattan for wampum beads is a perfect example: The European thought he got a killer deal because an island was worth far more than those beads. The Native thought, 'the land will be here after he dies, as he belongs to the land'. The native got a better deal because it wasn't a trade. Native Americans of all the tribes had a very strong sense of ownership. If that was not the case, the Natives would have not signed treaties indicating that this is "X's territory". http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/ntreaty.asp

VMG 15y ago

What is fascinating to me is the hypocrisy. Most HNers probably believe some sort of property rights for software (or even blog designs). May here would argue that the GPL is a great license and violators should be punished. You can also often read that Hollywood and the Music Industry are producing worthless crap, but yet The Pirate Bay is dominated by commercial entertainment, not by Creative Commons content. Much of it is certainly an emotional reaction to the aggressive behavior of RIAA/MPAA, but it really is sad to see so little capacity to see things from a different perspective.

chc 15y ago
I think it is a reaction to the copyright cartel, but not necessarily an emotional one. The cartel's position is crazy enough and harmful enough that I'm much closer to being on TPB's side than theirs. The enemy of my enemy. Similarly, if a rabid bear got loose in my house, I might temporarily befriend someone who I'd caught taking from my wallet — my interests align more with the thief's than the rabid bear's.
inchcombec 15y ago
I really don't see much/any hypocrisy in the comments I've read. There aren't exactly many people just saying "Pirate ALL the things!". There are legitimate reasons to be concerned by these constant attempts to attack certain technology or websites. Personally, I think that having a society that thinks that censorship is a good way to deal with ideas you dislike, which is where we're heading if this keeps up, is a lot more dangerous than intellectual property theft. Hell, it has been known for years that certain ISPs even go as far as to throttle ALL bittorrent traffic and despite what the MPAA would like people to believe some of the bittorrent use is perfectly legal. World of Warcraft actually uses bittorrent for their patches. As well, there are the facts that: -Laws have been passed that are so excessive in punishment that judges are actually slashing the penalties, and there are even stronger laws that lobbyists are trying to get passed. -This idea of protecting intellectual property at all costs has led to modern electronics devices being very rigidly controlled to the point that if you try to modify YOUR device to just install linux or something, you might be a criminal. -Copyright lasts a ridiculously long time. There should definitely be some rights so that the creator can benefit, but almost a century is too long.

burgerbrain 15y ago

Has it occurred to you that to many people the issue may not be piracy? I don't use the pirate bay, nor do I endorse copyright infringement, but this development nevertheless greatly concerns me. No, I suspect it has not.

javert 15y ago
I was responding to the parent of my comment, not to the article. Anyway, thanks for being a dick!

nileshtrivedi 15y ago

Well, at least some of us are against RIAA and MPAA, not because we want to steal their stuff, but because they are trying to kill our technologies and tools - which have fair, legal and genuine uses as well. They brought DMCA, made reverse-engineering illegal (even if no infringement happened), pushed for SOPA and are willing to go even further.

gitarr 15y ago

I am a musician who would never deal with RIAA, instead we put both our albums on The Pirate Bay to download and spread for free. Now I cannot link to those albums in Microsoft software because they censor all links? That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes society not the sharing and copying of files.

bostonvaulter2 15y ago
Can you link them here?
- gitarr 15y ago
  No, this nick is private and privacy is what i want to keep in this case.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - bostonvaulter2 15y ago
    Fair enough
javert 15y ago
I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA). That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech. You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech.

muuh-gnu 15y ago

> destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise) These are not the same. Most people do not support the concept of "intellectual property". But for a property to exist in practice, you need majority support, otherwise your property is either just imaginary or you need a totalitarian police state to enforce it. > the basis of society The concept of imaginary property is neither supported by a majority of population not in any other way democratically backed. Nobody on this planet has ever voted on it. From its early beginnings, it has been enforced from the top down, decided in shady deals behind closed doors between corrupt officials and industry stake holders and then enforced against the majority. > steal it To steal it, you must first reckognize that it is somebody else's property first. But what if you dont consider it property in the first place?

cowkingdeluxe 15y ago

DMCA is more than enough protection than the RIAA and MPAA should ever need. Instead they are going over board and trying to get more and more control.

temphn 15y ago

The products of the RIAA and MPAA generally undermine property rights (viz. "F the Police"). Now that they are the ones being f'd, they turn to the people who respect property rights to protect them. No sale, they deserve to pass into the ash heap of history.

zotz 15y ago

P2P is here to stay. RIAA and MPAA aren't. It's not a destruction of property rights. It's the beginning of something new for people that make a living creating things people like to hear and watch. Speaking as a musician who has had dealings with the RIAA, I won't miss them even one little bit.

javert 15y ago
P2P is here to stay. I would not be so sure about that. As computer people, we rely on governmental freedom to do what we do, and the politicians and the guys with guns can and will take that away if we stop defending freedom. Which we aren't doing very effectively lately.