4 ms·

> If IA had won, IA would be hailed as a cultural hero. You need a little bit more wisdom to change extremely entrenched laws. Simply breaking them has close t

by caseyy 2y ago

> If IA had won, IA would be hailed as a cultural hero. You need a little bit more wisdom to change extremely entrenched laws. Simply breaking them has close to zero probability of changing them. This was evident from the start. IA already had some disputes with rights owners for some of the content they archived. They should have progressively resolved these disputes until some pattern emerged where either mass archival of old movies, TV shows, news videos, video games, and similar was broadly acceptable, or broadly not. IA could have won this. I think most publishers were unwilling to burn money on enforcing their copyrights with products they no longer exploit. Now the org may not exist to see that day.

haswell 2y ago
> Simply breaking them has close to zero probability of changing them Breaking laws and pushing to change them has been the modus operandi for some of tech’s biggest names. It’d be interesting to see how this might have played out if the IA had the resources that Uber, Airbnb, Google, Facebook, etc have at their disposal. It’s a sobering look at who actually has power to shape the legal landscape, and which direction it’s likely to be shaped in.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Big tech companies have gotten their asses handed to them in copyright cases in the past.
  - haswell 2y ago
    That's fair. Maybe a category error on my part to compare these given the victories by big tech are mostly in other areas.
- caseyy 2y ago
  Tech companies have large legal departments which find ways to skirt around existing laws. Where these companies break laws, they almost never challenge them. When they are prosecuted for breaking laws, they draw attention to orthogonal issues in court proceedings and hearings, delay the process, and involve a lot of other legal strategies. When they are sued by competitors for infringing on other's interests by breaking laws, they counter-sue, often frivolously. They also lobby. Breaking laws and then arguing to change them when caught doesn't work and almost no one does it. The cost in money and time to get to higher courts, win (uncertain probability) and create a precedent with a legal department is 10x-1000x the cost of lobbying congress to pass a bill. The big tech corporate lawsuits that go to appeals are so expensive that one could probably straight up bribe influential politicians for less, should that be the path one wished to take. We know stories where people went to higher courts and won to create a precedent because these stories are heroic and rare. If IA had the resources of Uber it wouldn't have worked out any differently, because it doesn't for Uber when they break laws. For example, around structuring employment as b2b contracting. These companies have the resources to shape the legal landscape, but not by breaking laws and getting prosecuted for it. That would show very poor decision-making. Maybe they can become martyrs and win the court of public opinion when their actions are seen as moral. But an org like IA can do much more good than just become a martyr, so this is a very poor decision.
  - haswell 2y ago
    > because it doesn't for Uber when they break laws Every company I mentioned has broken laws, paid fines, and subsequently had laws changed in their favor. I'm not saying it always works, but it works enough of the time that these companies accept it as a cost of doing business and have won. With that said, as pointed out in a different reply, copyright isn't one of the categories in which these companies are winning, so perhaps a questionable comparison by me in the original comment. I agree this was a poor decision on IA's part, because they just don't have the horsepower to operate this way (not that I endorse this kind of behavior by businesses in the first place). > These companies have the resources to shape the legal landscape, but not by breaking laws and getting prosecuted for it. That would show very poor decision-making. Perhaps it's poor decision-making, but that's exactly what's been going on for years now. I suspect this is part of the reason numerous governments have been increasingly anti-tech in recent years.
    - p0w3n3d 2y ago
      Exactly. Big companies are buying laws but a normal civil person must adhere and lose possibility for example to own a movie or music. Moreover US law system is extrapolated on other countries but unlawfully (i.e. Bigtech behaves in my country as if it was US and I have no possibility to appeal)
  - p0w3n3d 2y ago
    In Russia similar situation effectively is called an oligarchy. If you have money, you can count on law being on your side despite the case. If companies having a lot of money can change law to be on their side, this is the same. Becoming a martyr in US law system (precedential) does not make much sense in my honest opinion. Look at Disney Mickey Mouse casus - nothing will change in here
    - immibis 2y ago
      FWIW Steamboat Willie (the first appearance of Mickey Mouse) is no longer copyrighted.

by caseyy 2y ago

haswell 2y ago

> Simply breaking them has close to zero probability of changing them Breaking laws and pushing to change them has been the modus operandi for some of tech’s biggest names. It’d be interesting to see how this might have played out if the IA had the resources that Uber, Airbnb, Google, Facebook, etc have at their disposal. It’s a sobering look at who actually has power to shape the legal landscape, and which direction it’s likely to be shaped in.

tptacek 2y ago
Big tech companies have gotten their asses handed to them in copyright cases in the past.
- haswell 2y ago
  That's fair. Maybe a category error on my part to compare these given the victories by big tech are mostly in other areas.
caseyy 2y ago
Tech companies have large legal departments which find ways to skirt around existing laws. Where these companies break laws, they almost never challenge them. When they are prosecuted for breaking laws, they draw attention to orthogonal issues in court proceedings and hearings, delay the process, and involve a lot of other legal strategies. When they are sued by competitors for infringing on other's interests by breaking laws, they counter-sue, often frivolously. They also lobby. Breaking laws and then arguing to change them when caught doesn't work and almost no one does it. The cost in money and time to get to higher courts, win (uncertain probability) and create a precedent with a legal department is 10x-1000x the cost of lobbying congress to pass a bill. The big tech corporate lawsuits that go to appeals are so expensive that one could probably straight up bribe influential politicians for less, should that be the path one wished to take. We know stories where people went to higher courts and won to create a precedent because these stories are heroic and rare. If IA had the resources of Uber it wouldn't have worked out any differently, because it doesn't for Uber when they break laws. For example, around structuring employment as b2b contracting. These companies have the resources to shape the legal landscape, but not by breaking laws and getting prosecuted for it. That would show very poor decision-making. Maybe they can become martyrs and win the court of public opinion when their actions are seen as moral. But an org like IA can do much more good than just become a martyr, so this is a very poor decision.
- haswell 2y ago
  > because it doesn't for Uber when they break laws Every company I mentioned has broken laws, paid fines, and subsequently had laws changed in their favor. I'm not saying it always works, but it works enough of the time that these companies accept it as a cost of doing business and have won. With that said, as pointed out in a different reply, copyright isn't one of the categories in which these companies are winning, so perhaps a questionable comparison by me in the original comment. I agree this was a poor decision on IA's part, because they just don't have the horsepower to operate this way (not that I endorse this kind of behavior by businesses in the first place). > These companies have the resources to shape the legal landscape, but not by breaking laws and getting prosecuted for it. That would show very poor decision-making. Perhaps it's poor decision-making, but that's exactly what's been going on for years now. I suspect this is part of the reason numerous governments have been increasingly anti-tech in recent years.
  - p0w3n3d 2y ago
    Exactly. Big companies are buying laws but a normal civil person must adhere and lose possibility for example to own a movie or music. Moreover US law system is extrapolated on other countries but unlawfully (i.e. Bigtech behaves in my country as if it was US and I have no possibility to appeal)
- p0w3n3d 2y ago
  In Russia similar situation effectively is called an oligarchy. If you have money, you can count on law being on your side despite the case. If companies having a lot of money can change law to be on their side, this is the same. Becoming a martyr in US law system (precedential) does not make much sense in my honest opinion. Look at Disney Mickey Mouse casus - nothing will change in here
  - immibis 2y ago
    FWIW Steamboat Willie (the first appearance of Mickey Mouse) is no longer copyrighted.