5 ms·

>is weird and crosses many limits. It's similar in format to communities that obssess over "lost media." The inability to pirate or get access to something bec

>is weird and crosses many limits. It's similar in format to communities that obssess over "lost media." The inability to pirate or get access to something becomes an obsession. Even if the piece of media exists in an archive somewhere, that doesn't matter to them because it's about the fact that they themselves don't have access to it that has become the obsession.

LiamPowell 1y ago
There's also the piracy communities where a majority of users believe they have some sort of inherent right to watch something merely because it exists. I don't understand where that sentiment comes from.
- bakugo 1y ago
  > I don't understand where that sentiment comes from. Human nature. Refusing to accept being told "no" by some greater force is the instinct that pushed humanity forward to where we are today.
  - Bjartr 1y ago
    That's a rather romantic way to say stubbornness is sometimes effective
- lovich 1y ago
  I mean, part of the deal with IP law is you get government protection for your idea, in exchange for society having access to it. I’m personally of the mind that if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access. This is not defending the ones who believe they have the right to things sans that deal
  - jaccola 1y ago
    This argument is so ridiculous I must be misunderstanding you. By your logic you owe me access your house since my tax dollars pay for the legal system that gives you property rights?!
    - mattmanser 1y ago
      It's not ridiculous, that's the deal (at least it was). It's not actual property. It's a made up concept, you actually lose nothing physical if it's copied. That concept was created and granted to encourage people to create. You get a certain period to commercialize it, then it's public property. Hiding it away to prevent that is a breach of the spirit of the agreement society made with the creator. That you believe it's a "ridiculous" argument shows how much you've been brainwashed by corporations. All this stuff is generally built on the shoulders of previous works, that are public domain. Copying story structures, phrasing, etc. Even entire storylines. And that's before we get onto the fact that all these corporations benefited from eveything we paid for. Laws to protect their IP, enforcement, infrastructure paid with by public money, education of workers, etc.. They've got their hands out to take, take, take, but when it comes to holding up to their part of the bargain, it's suddenly extensions on copyright terms, minor tweaks to "renew" IP that was never part of the original deal, etc. while feeding a ton of cash to politicians in what looks like a bribe, acts like a bribe, but is termed "lobbying".
      - charcircuit 1y ago
        >It's a made up concept Physical property is made up too. You don't lose anything from someone sleeping on your couch either.
        yrxuthst 1y ago
        If someone is sleeping on your couch, then you lose the ability to sleep on it yourself, because they are taking up the space.
        charcircuit 1y ago
        Well then they can sleep in your bed if you want the couch or someone else in your home you aren't using.
        c22 1y ago
  - zenoprax 1y ago
    Without IP law it is all or nothing: obfuscate, hide, encrypt, and protect lest it become public domain. With IP law you are given the exclusive, enforceable right to control the distribution and sale of an idea for N years... at which point it becomes public domain. In either case the decision to publish an idea will inevitably make it public domain. The government protects their shit because $REASONS but there is absolutely no obligation for it to be made public until that protection lapse. In matters of human culture this seems like a bug, not a feature but enforcing some standard of "reasonable worldwide availability" by force seems impossible. The invisible hand of piracy "solves" this oversight and functions like a safety valve. Not an endorsement of either side, just an observation.
    - mik1998 1y ago
      This was fine when N = 28. Now it's life of the author plus 95 so there is almost no possibility of anything released in your lifetime to be a part of the public domain before you die.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        A british man predicted this was going to happen nearly two centuries ago. His address to the courts are worth reading in their entirety, it contains everything we need to know about copyright. https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyright/ https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr... > At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. [...] Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. > Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly > Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law > Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit > and the whole nation will be in the plot > when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop > The public seldom makes nice distinctions > The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create
        1y ago
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    If that were the case then no physical artwork could be privately held. That, too, is covered by IP laws but there is no obligation to provide society access.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - lovich 1y ago
      Physical artwork is not covered by IP law. Reproductions of the artwork are covered by IP law. Physical property is already covered by regular property rights
  - haskellshill 1y ago
    > if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access Well, the protection is only from random people accessing one's stuff, so this is a very silly (in fact nonsensical) argument. "If my tax dollars went towards you having right X, I thus deserve to infringe on that right X".
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    > I’m personally of the mind that if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access. Our tax dollars go towards protecting lots of different things for lots of different people (including me and you) that we have no rights to at all, nor ever will.
    - lovich 1y ago
      And they are taxed in different ways to pay for it(property taxes) or I and society at large get some benefit(protecting utility companies property that I can’t access)
  - matheusmoreira 1y ago
    Intellectual properties are temporary. Patents and copyrights expire and enter the public domain. The social contract is we all pretend we can't trivially copy their works for a couple decades so they can turn a profit and then the works enter the public domain. The constant extensions of copyright duration clearly demonstrate that the copyright industry has no intention to fulfill their end of the deal. They have systematically robbed us of our public domain rights and become rent seekers.
- vintermann 1y ago
  That should be the default assumption. It's restrictions which require justification in a liberal society, not freedoms.
  - Planktonne 1y ago
    "Everyone has to share everything" is a restriction, not a freedom.
    - tmtvl 1y ago
      Where did that come from? 'You aren't allowed to prevent others from sharing this thing' is completely different from 'you have to share this thing'. 'Everyone is allowed to share everything' is a freedom, not a restriction. Whether or not it's a freedom people should have is a difficult question to answer because we don't know what the modern world would be like without copyright (I expect creators would try and get paid for creating more works so it might look like how nowadays some shows end in cliffhangers to give the creators some leverage over the publishers to say 'look, people want to know what comes next, maybe you should let us do another season').
      - Planktonne 1y ago
        People have always been allowed to share their own things; what you're demanding is the sharing of other people's things. It's not piracy if the owner chooses to share.
        1gn15 1y ago
        People are not allowed to share the copies they possess. That's the restriction.
  - II2II 1y ago
    Freedoms are a balancing of rights between two or more parties, and are never absolute. Complicating the matter futher: it is very unlikely that all parties are going to agree what that balancing of rights looks like. For example, someone who shares knowledge (e.g. a teacher) is going to have a very different perspective on copyright law than a person who sells knowlege (e.g. a publisher).
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > I don't understand where that sentiment comes from. If you actually wish to understand, I can point to a thread where this was discussed somewhat at length by others and myself not too long ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44907830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44907830 TL;DR: Public domain is the natural state of information. Intellectual property is an absurd state granted monopoly on what boils down to numbers. Copyright in particular is a functionally infinite monopoly that robs us of our public domain rights. Copyright infringement is civil disobedience of unjust laws and arguably a moral imperative. Copyright enforcement requires the destruction of computer freedom as we know it as well as everything the word "hacker" stands for and therefore it must be resisted even if it destroys the copyright industry. It makes zero economic sense to charge money for information which has infinite availability, therefore society must figure out how to pay creators before the work is produced.
- ohdeargodno 1y ago
  Not only are you being disingenous by generalizing to "anything that exists" (when for the immense majority is "anything you put up for sale", it's just Mossad that wants your family vaction photos), but here's the thing: I do have that right. By default. It might make you unhappy, but I have it. It crosses into a different territory if I deprive you from it (theft), or if the only I would have had to acquired it would be to buy a copy from you(piracy), but ultimately, as a society, we've decided that harming you for it is a line not to be crossed. I have every right to see a thing. Just like you have every right to try to stop me from doing so. The general rule is that we shouldn't hurt eachother trying to do it/prevent it.
lupusreal 1y ago
Interest in lost media is a harmless hobby, which occasionally yields positive fruit. Reddit looked for the identity of the song "Subways of your Mind" for 17 years before it was found, and I'm sure the band was pleased to learn their music had found such interest so many years later. Where's the harm? Calling it "obsession" to make it sound bad can be done to any hobby.

LiamPowell 1y ago

There's also the piracy communities where a majority of users believe they have some sort of inherent right to watch something merely because it exists. I don't understand where that sentiment comes from.

bakugo 1y ago
> I don't understand where that sentiment comes from. Human nature. Refusing to accept being told "no" by some greater force is the instinct that pushed humanity forward to where we are today.
- Bjartr 1y ago
  That's a rather romantic way to say stubbornness is sometimes effective
lovich 1y ago
I mean, part of the deal with IP law is you get government protection for your idea, in exchange for society having access to it. I’m personally of the mind that if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access. This is not defending the ones who believe they have the right to things sans that deal
- jaccola 1y ago
  This argument is so ridiculous I must be misunderstanding you. By your logic you owe me access your house since my tax dollars pay for the legal system that gives you property rights?!
  - mattmanser 1y ago
    It's not ridiculous, that's the deal (at least it was). It's not actual property. It's a made up concept, you actually lose nothing physical if it's copied. That concept was created and granted to encourage people to create. You get a certain period to commercialize it, then it's public property. Hiding it away to prevent that is a breach of the spirit of the agreement society made with the creator. That you believe it's a "ridiculous" argument shows how much you've been brainwashed by corporations. All this stuff is generally built on the shoulders of previous works, that are public domain. Copying story structures, phrasing, etc. Even entire storylines. And that's before we get onto the fact that all these corporations benefited from eveything we paid for. Laws to protect their IP, enforcement, infrastructure paid with by public money, education of workers, etc.. They've got their hands out to take, take, take, but when it comes to holding up to their part of the bargain, it's suddenly extensions on copyright terms, minor tweaks to "renew" IP that was never part of the original deal, etc. while feeding a ton of cash to politicians in what looks like a bribe, acts like a bribe, but is termed "lobbying".
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      >It's a made up concept Physical property is made up too. You don't lose anything from someone sleeping on your couch either.
      - yrxuthst 1y ago
        If someone is sleeping on your couch, then you lose the ability to sleep on it yourself, because they are taking up the space.
        charcircuit 1y ago
        Well then they can sleep in your bed if you want the couch or someone else in your home you aren't using.
        c22 1y ago
- zenoprax 1y ago
  Without IP law it is all or nothing: obfuscate, hide, encrypt, and protect lest it become public domain. With IP law you are given the exclusive, enforceable right to control the distribution and sale of an idea for N years... at which point it becomes public domain. In either case the decision to publish an idea will inevitably make it public domain. The government protects their shit because $REASONS but there is absolutely no obligation for it to be made public until that protection lapse. In matters of human culture this seems like a bug, not a feature but enforcing some standard of "reasonable worldwide availability" by force seems impossible. The invisible hand of piracy "solves" this oversight and functions like a safety valve. Not an endorsement of either side, just an observation.
  - mik1998 1y ago
    This was fine when N = 28. Now it's life of the author plus 95 so there is almost no possibility of anything released in your lifetime to be a part of the public domain before you die.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      A british man predicted this was going to happen nearly two centuries ago. His address to the courts are worth reading in their entirety, it contains everything we need to know about copyright. https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyright/ https://www.thepublicdomain.org/2014/07/24/macaulay-on-copyr... > At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. [...] Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. > Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly > Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law > Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit > and the whole nation will be in the plot > when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop > The public seldom makes nice distinctions > The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create
      - 1y ago
- zdragnar 1y ago
  If that were the case then no physical artwork could be privately held. That, too, is covered by IP laws but there is no obligation to provide society access.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - lovich 1y ago
    Physical artwork is not covered by IP law. Reproductions of the artwork are covered by IP law. Physical property is already covered by regular property rights
- haskellshill 1y ago
  > if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access Well, the protection is only from random people accessing one's stuff, so this is a very silly (in fact nonsensical) argument. "If my tax dollars went towards you having right X, I thus deserve to infringe on that right X".
- nkrisc 1y ago
  > I’m personally of the mind that if my tax dollars went towards protecting your shit, you owe society access. Our tax dollars go towards protecting lots of different things for lots of different people (including me and you) that we have no rights to at all, nor ever will.
  - lovich 1y ago
    And they are taxed in different ways to pay for it(property taxes) or I and society at large get some benefit(protecting utility companies property that I can’t access)
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  Intellectual properties are temporary. Patents and copyrights expire and enter the public domain. The social contract is we all pretend we can't trivially copy their works for a couple decades so they can turn a profit and then the works enter the public domain. The constant extensions of copyright duration clearly demonstrate that the copyright industry has no intention to fulfill their end of the deal. They have systematically robbed us of our public domain rights and become rent seekers.
vintermann 1y ago
That should be the default assumption. It's restrictions which require justification in a liberal society, not freedoms.
- Planktonne 1y ago
  "Everyone has to share everything" is a restriction, not a freedom.
  - tmtvl 1y ago
    Where did that come from? 'You aren't allowed to prevent others from sharing this thing' is completely different from 'you have to share this thing'. 'Everyone is allowed to share everything' is a freedom, not a restriction. Whether or not it's a freedom people should have is a difficult question to answer because we don't know what the modern world would be like without copyright (I expect creators would try and get paid for creating more works so it might look like how nowadays some shows end in cliffhangers to give the creators some leverage over the publishers to say 'look, people want to know what comes next, maybe you should let us do another season').
    - Planktonne 1y ago
      People have always been allowed to share their own things; what you're demanding is the sharing of other people's things. It's not piracy if the owner chooses to share.
      - 1gn15 1y ago
        People are not allowed to share the copies they possess. That's the restriction.
- II2II 1y ago
  Freedoms are a balancing of rights between two or more parties, and are never absolute. Complicating the matter futher: it is very unlikely that all parties are going to agree what that balancing of rights looks like. For example, someone who shares knowledge (e.g. a teacher) is going to have a very different perspective on copyright law than a person who sells knowlege (e.g. a publisher).
matheusmoreira 1y ago
> I don't understand where that sentiment comes from. If you actually wish to understand, I can point to a thread where this was discussed somewhat at length by others and myself not too long ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44907830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44907830 TL;DR: Public domain is the natural state of information. Intellectual property is an absurd state granted monopoly on what boils down to numbers. Copyright in particular is a functionally infinite monopoly that robs us of our public domain rights. Copyright infringement is civil disobedience of unjust laws and arguably a moral imperative. Copyright enforcement requires the destruction of computer freedom as we know it as well as everything the word "hacker" stands for and therefore it must be resisted even if it destroys the copyright industry. It makes zero economic sense to charge money for information which has infinite availability, therefore society must figure out how to pay creators before the work is produced.
ohdeargodno 1y ago
Not only are you being disingenous by generalizing to "anything that exists" (when for the immense majority is "anything you put up for sale", it's just Mossad that wants your family vaction photos), but here's the thing: I do have that right. By default. It might make you unhappy, but I have it. It crosses into a different territory if I deprive you from it (theft), or if the only I would have had to acquired it would be to buy a copy from you(piracy), but ultimately, as a society, we've decided that harming you for it is a line not to be crossed. I have every right to see a thing. Just like you have every right to try to stop me from doing so. The general rule is that we shouldn't hurt eachother trying to do it/prevent it.

lupusreal 1y ago

Interest in lost media is a harmless hobby, which occasionally yields positive fruit. Reddit looked for the identity of the song "Subways of your Mind" for 17 years before it was found, and I'm sure the band was pleased to learn their music had found such interest so many years later. Where's the harm? Calling it "obsession" to make it sound bad can be done to any hobby.