4 ms·

The problem with closing loopholes that are being exploited is that it can be hard to do without causing unwelcome side effects. In other words, the loophole e

The problem with closing loopholes that are being exploited is that it can be hard to do without causing unwelcome side effects. In other words, the loophole exists for a reason. If you "close" it you may cause good in one area but harm in others. So at the very least one should move slowly to at least understand the issue properly, beyond just the obvious exploitation. For example (and since I know nothing about small parcel imports, I'll use something I'm more familiar with) there's often a knee-jerk reaction to the exploitation of IP laws (trademark, copyright, patents). Some suggest killing it all. Some favor dumping patents but keeping the rest, and so on. But any change will have "unexpected" consequences. These tools are used by businesses of all sizes and means. Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.) So while "immediate action" seems like a good thing at first glance, it seldom works out that way. Throwing tarrifs on imported goods protects local jobs, but equally drives up prices (aka inflation). So charitably I interpret "intentionally not neighbors changed" to "being changed intentionally, with care to achieve the desired effect not some unwelcome side effect.

Arnt 2y ago
This "loophole" is likely to be motivated be the cost of processing small transactions. If customs officers spend two minutes per parcel, then it makes sense to exempt parcels for which the expected revenue doesn't even cover one minute's labour cost. Where I live, parcels with an expected revenue below the price of a cup of espresso are exempt. The definition is different, of course.
roenxi 2y ago
> Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.) The point is a good one but the example was chosen a little quickly. It'd kill the GPL because the GPL is part of copyright law. That much is simple to see. But it'd probably be a net win for user freedom. Right now, people choose to use free software either because it is good (and would see no difference if the GPL disappeared) or because it is free (and, again, would make decisions the same way in a no-IP world - only use software where the source is available). So the only risk is people copying an OSS project as free riders, withholding source changes and using some sort of embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. But EEE relies on proprietary extensions, so that strategy probably doesn't work without the support of IP law. The OS projects could clone features back in. Proprietary providers could fight back with a client server model - but AWS for example already does that so it isn't really new and the equilibrium is generally to contribute upstream anyway. I would expect software freedoms to improve if we lost the GPL as part of a big removal of IP laws. There'd be tactical instances where people were worse off, maybe. But strategically the OSS community would just be in a better position. They can keep doing what they do, it is harder to sue them and difficult to profit off their work in ways that aren't already possible.
commodoreboxer 2y ago
> Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.) Without copyright, the GPL wouldn't need to exist because the freedoms it protects would be impossible to suppress.
- peeters 2y ago
  I'm not sure I see how that's true. The GPL puts a legal onus on modifiers to publish their modifications to the source with distributions of the software. Without copyright, any other party might be legally entitled to use and redistribute said modifications, but the modifier wouldn't be compelled to publish them.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Exactly what I meant. GPL requires modifications to be released. That us precisely what differentiates it from public domain.
  - samus 2y ago
    That's not really the problem the GPL is intended to fight against. The source code can usually somehow be recovered via decompiling. But that's illegal in the presence of copyright, and even reverse engineering is a legal minefield further encumbered by patents.
    - labcomputer 2y ago
      Ok, so why is are GPL licenses so popular compared to BSD and MIT licenses? Why did the GNU foundation even bother writing a license at all? Those other licenses do not require republishing, so it seems that authors of OSS value the additional republication requirements provided by the GPL license. Even in under the current copyright regime, one can (perhaps other-than-legally) decompile binary to recover source-like code, and then launder and reinject the learned improvements back into the open source project. And the GPL license does not universally grant patent rights back to the source project.
yunohn 2y ago
The word “loophole” usually means a bypass of a law/rule in its spirit due to its language, thus leading to a void / gray area of enforcement that is beneficial to the exploiter. I say that because everytime the topic of “closing a loophole” comes up, HNers act like it’s metaphysically impossible. But if you just think a little bit more, you’d realize that the existence of a loophole shows that the said law is specifically NOT covering the edge cases, but is covering the general cases without problems. Hence, fixing it would most likely affect the exploited case, not the beneficial case.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  Not always. Many times a loophole is something that exists as a logical consequence of other laws and regulations, and people (actually normally corporations) abuse those to their own benefit.
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  The possibility you’re not acknowledging is that the “spirit of the law” is trying to achieve something that cannot be done, or at least not done without massively modifying the way a system works to an unacceptable level. Law makers know this, but it’s not really a problem for them because they can write their bad law, leave it full of “loopholes” to be “exploited”, and then just cry about some loophole exploiting boogeyman to their constituents and donors as the reason their law making efforts have failed. If you wanted to be cynical you might even suggest that this is the desired outcome and a way of managing circumstances where donor and constituent interest are in conflict, or perhaps just a way of signalling that you’re delivering on a policy promise, when in reality you can’t. Corporate tax avoidance is a great example of this. The only feature you need your laws to have to facilitate corporate tax avoidance is the ability to incur a deductible expense to an offshore entity. The only thing corporate tax law loophole closing ever achieves is to make corporate tax avoidance procedures more complicated, thus making them only accessible to more sophisticated tax avoiders. There is no conceivable way of closing these “loopholes” without extreme protectionism or isolationism. It would basically require ending globalization or at least removing your country from the globalized economy. A solution that most people would find completely unacceptable.

Arnt 2y ago

This "loophole" is likely to be motivated be the cost of processing small transactions. If customs officers spend two minutes per parcel, then it makes sense to exempt parcels for which the expected revenue doesn't even cover one minute's labour cost. Where I live, parcels with an expected revenue below the price of a cup of espresso are exempt. The definition is different, of course.

roenxi 2y ago

> Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.) The point is a good one but the example was chosen a little quickly. It'd kill the GPL because the GPL is part of copyright law. That much is simple to see. But it'd probably be a net win for user freedom. Right now, people choose to use free software either because it is good (and would see no difference if the GPL disappeared) or because it is free (and, again, would make decisions the same way in a no-IP world - only use software where the source is available). So the only risk is people copying an OSS project as free riders, withholding source changes and using some sort of embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. But EEE relies on proprietary extensions, so that strategy probably doesn't work without the support of IP law. The OS projects could clone features back in. Proprietary providers could fight back with a client server model - but AWS for example already does that so it isn't really new and the equilibrium is generally to contribute upstream anyway. I would expect software freedoms to improve if we lost the GPL as part of a big removal of IP laws. There'd be tactical instances where people were worse off, maybe. But strategically the OSS community would just be in a better position. They can keep doing what they do, it is harder to sue them and difficult to profit off their work in ways that aren't already possible.

commodoreboxer 2y ago

> Killing copyright because you dont like Microsoft would equally kill things like Free Software (because it would invalidate the freedoms enforced by the GPL.) Without copyright, the GPL wouldn't need to exist because the freedoms it protects would be impossible to suppress.

peeters 2y ago
I'm not sure I see how that's true. The GPL puts a legal onus on modifiers to publish their modifications to the source with distributions of the software. Without copyright, any other party might be legally entitled to use and redistribute said modifications, but the modifier wouldn't be compelled to publish them.
- bruce511 2y ago
  Exactly what I meant. GPL requires modifications to be released. That us precisely what differentiates it from public domain.
- samus 2y ago
  That's not really the problem the GPL is intended to fight against. The source code can usually somehow be recovered via decompiling. But that's illegal in the presence of copyright, and even reverse engineering is a legal minefield further encumbered by patents.
  - labcomputer 2y ago
    Ok, so why is are GPL licenses so popular compared to BSD and MIT licenses? Why did the GNU foundation even bother writing a license at all? Those other licenses do not require republishing, so it seems that authors of OSS value the additional republication requirements provided by the GPL license. Even in under the current copyright regime, one can (perhaps other-than-legally) decompile binary to recover source-like code, and then launder and reinject the learned improvements back into the open source project. And the GPL license does not universally grant patent rights back to the source project.

yunohn 2y ago

The word “loophole” usually means a bypass of a law/rule in its spirit due to its language, thus leading to a void / gray area of enforcement that is beneficial to the exploiter. I say that because everytime the topic of “closing a loophole” comes up, HNers act like it’s metaphysically impossible. But if you just think a little bit more, you’d realize that the existence of a loophole shows that the said law is specifically NOT covering the edge cases, but is covering the general cases without problems. Hence, fixing it would most likely affect the exploited case, not the beneficial case.

surgical_fire 2y ago
Not always. Many times a loophole is something that exists as a logical consequence of other laws and regulations, and people (actually normally corporations) abuse those to their own benefit.
AmericanChopper 2y ago
The possibility you’re not acknowledging is that the “spirit of the law” is trying to achieve something that cannot be done, or at least not done without massively modifying the way a system works to an unacceptable level. Law makers know this, but it’s not really a problem for them because they can write their bad law, leave it full of “loopholes” to be “exploited”, and then just cry about some loophole exploiting boogeyman to their constituents and donors as the reason their law making efforts have failed. If you wanted to be cynical you might even suggest that this is the desired outcome and a way of managing circumstances where donor and constituent interest are in conflict, or perhaps just a way of signalling that you’re delivering on a policy promise, when in reality you can’t. Corporate tax avoidance is a great example of this. The only feature you need your laws to have to facilitate corporate tax avoidance is the ability to incur a deductible expense to an offshore entity. The only thing corporate tax law loophole closing ever achieves is to make corporate tax avoidance procedures more complicated, thus making them only accessible to more sophisticated tax avoiders. There is no conceivable way of closing these “loopholes” without extreme protectionism or isolationism. It would basically require ending globalization or at least removing your country from the globalized economy. A solution that most people would find completely unacceptable.