5 ms·

I don't believe HN is strongly anti-copyright. I think you conflate anti-copyright with anti-DRM and other related issues. You can be against draconian method

by noodle 15y ago

I don't believe HN is strongly anti-copyright. I think you conflate anti-copyright with anti-DRM and other related issues. You can be against draconian methods of enforcing copyrights and current copyright laws while still being pro copyright and pro content creator rights.

VMG 15y ago
In Paul Grahams essay "Defining Property" he argues that copyright is meaningless when it is impractical to defend - the HN community was pretty much in agreement. http://paulgraham.com/property.html http://paulgraham.com/property.html, discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694672 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694672
- nknight 15y ago
  The essay in question is infinitely more complex and nuanced than you seem to be giving it credit for, as are the myriad views of the HN community. HN is filled with entrepreneurs who, in one way or another, almost always rely on copyright. Claiming some sort of blanket "anti-copyright" sentiment is both disingenuous and insulting.
  - sbov 15y ago
    Here's a relevant discussion in that thread on your second point: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694800 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694800
- noodle 15y ago
  1) As nknight already said, the essay says more than your summary. 2) Do you disagree with your own summary? If it costs you more enforcing your copyright than you make off of the benefits of its enforcement, do you not think you should rethink things?
- ktizo 15y ago
  All rights end up as meaningless when they are impractical to defend. Rights are ideas and do better in some environments than in others. The good bits of copyright are about fairness and the idea that someone is entitled to a certain amount of respect of the intention they have in how what they have produced should be used. This guy had put copyright watermarks on the images themselves. For profit groups in media should respect that, not out of niceness, but because that is the world they choose to inhabit and well informed photographers can make them look extremely bad and still get paid.

by noodle 15y ago

VMG 15y ago

In Paul Grahams essay "Defining Property" he argues that copyright is meaningless when it is impractical to defend - the HN community was pretty much in agreement. http://paulgraham.com/property.html http://paulgraham.com/property.html, discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694672 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694672

nknight 15y ago
The essay in question is infinitely more complex and nuanced than you seem to be giving it credit for, as are the myriad views of the HN community. HN is filled with entrepreneurs who, in one way or another, almost always rely on copyright. Claiming some sort of blanket "anti-copyright" sentiment is both disingenuous and insulting.
- sbov 15y ago
  Here's a relevant discussion in that thread on your second point: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694800 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694800
noodle 15y ago
1) As nknight already said, the essay says more than your summary. 2) Do you disagree with your own summary? If it costs you more enforcing your copyright than you make off of the benefits of its enforcement, do you not think you should rethink things?
ktizo 15y ago
All rights end up as meaningless when they are impractical to defend. Rights are ideas and do better in some environments than in others. The good bits of copyright are about fairness and the idea that someone is entitled to a certain amount of respect of the intention they have in how what they have produced should be used. This guy had put copyright watermarks on the images themselves. For profit groups in media should respect that, not out of niceness, but because that is the world they choose to inhabit and well informed photographers can make them look extremely bad and still get paid.