3 ms·

It may well be that hard-right conservatives are opposed to copyright reform. But I think you will have to agree that progressives are likewise unlikely to cove

by temphn 14y ago

It may well be that hard-right conservatives are opposed to copyright reform. But I think you will have to agree that progressives are likewise unlikely to cover themselves in glory here, as many of the most vicious and relentless lobbyists for maximalist copyright come from progressive redoubts like Hollywood, the RIAA, and NYC media.

tptacek 14y ago
I think establishment liberals and conservatives have all (correctly) come to the conclusion that might does not make right, and the fact that it has become absurdly easy to violate copyrights for the noble cause of "I am entitled to watch _Resident Evil: Retribution_ on any terms I like" does not somehow obsolete copyright. Every time my fellow nerds see fit to inform me of how outmoded copyrights and rights-supported business models are in the era of the Internet and BitTorrent, I think of how outmoded their business models are, built as they all are on the idea that anyone in the world couldn't pop a shell on them at any moment and wipe their databases clean. But then I remember that they've also stuck up for DDOS attacks as "the digital equivalent of a sit-in", and I give up.
- njs12345 14y ago
  Do you think copyright terms are too long? I don't think there are too many even here (although they are often vocal) who would advocate completely getting rid of copyright, but the content of that memo did seem sensible to me..
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Yes, I do think copyright terms are too long.
- Natsu 14y ago
  Usually, the notion that the business is "outmoded" is describing one that cannot survive without supporting regulation and that they may not survive even with it due to inherent business problems. Namely, "we can't stop people from sharing stuff unless we control everyone's computer" (or something close to that). That's not really analogous to a hypothetical web-based business with a security hole. If anything, natural selection would then favor those businesses without such flaws, rather than seeing the industry itself wiped out. One might think that it already has, in that I remember the bad old days of CGI programs written in C. (I'm sure there's someone out there who could do that securely, but...)
- kbolino 14y ago
  I don't know where in the grand scheme of things we decided that knowledge was a form of might, and that its application was inherently wrong. It's furthermore a bit rich to decry the "might" of an individual versus comparatively vast and powerful legal entities like governments and corporations. I really ought to be able to consume content that I have purchased in a manner of my choosing. It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the game company's servers are down, or that I can't keep a backup copy of a movie that's stored on a fragile medium, or that the maker of my electronic device can rescind access to books that I've purchased. I don't take issue with business models based upon copyright because they're "outmoded"; I take issue with the provision of a privilege that exceeds its mandate. Also, I take issue with the idea of calling something "property" without attaching to it any of the trappings of property. Disney pays no tax for "owning" Mickey Mouse. They are not required to estimate in a consistent or coherent manner the value of their "property". They can sue for damages without regard to any actual costs. They can attach limitations to physical property (storage media) that abrogate normal property rights (use and resale). Yes, there are people who want to tear down copyright simply because they want free stuff. I am not one of those people; I gladly pay for the media I consume, and I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted media. But that does not make the system we have acceptable, and it does not make any and all criticism of it illegitimate.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the game company's servers are down Then don't buy the damn game. How hard is that?
    - kbolino 14y ago
      I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted media That's me, in the post to which you replied, making the same point. IF I know beforehand, I won't buy the game. But how do you find out that a single-player game doesn't work when its vendor's servers go down? By owning the game and finding out first-hand (it's not printed on the box). Have you ever tried to return a piece of opened software? If the defect isn't on the disc, exchanging it won't do any good. You cannot appeal to a free market argument like caveat emptor once you've already acceded to a decidedly non-anarchistic world where the government grants and enforces copy and license rights. Consumers have positive rights too, like the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. You can be cavalier and abrasive as long as you're right; when you're not right, then you're just being an ass.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  Arguments based on "Might doesn't make right" aren't a good fit for copyright and IP discussion, because IP isn't a natural right. There is absolutely no ethical basis for IP laws besides the consent of those who are governed by them. Put another way, if 85% of people no longer respect a given copyright law, then it's time for that law to change. A comparison can be drawn with speed limits.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  How do you tell whether you're the only right person in a crowd of wrong people, or whether you're the only wrong person in a crowd of right people? (I wonder this myself sometimes about other subjects, and I see it in nearly every comment you make about copyright.)
- wnight 14y ago
  No, that's not what obsolete copyright. But copyright is intended as a give and take and if I can't watch Resident Evil on my terms they've broken their end of it. I see no need to be the patsy in every situation, either prevented from using something I own, or prevented from owning things I need (not that this is an example, but a compiler perhaps) because of what strike me as unreasonable rules. What obsoletes copyright entirely is that it's a horrible way (like patents) of meeting its modern goals. Its authoritarian roots in censorship make it more focused on controlling distribution than rewarding the creator of valuable things. You (generically) might have noble goals with copyrights but they're a legal minefield stifling activity. And all because we won't reward a creator but merely give them a letter of marque to go try to reward themselves with. If we really cared about the public good (the supposed reason for copyright) or the creators, we'd make copying unrestricted and we'd reward the creators from a public tax pool that we'd fund by stopping all restrictions on copying and the savings from not legislating/litigating/enforcing this nonsense. As for DDOS attacks, in what ways aren't they like sit-ins? In both resources are intentionally wasted, customers blocked, and often the harm spills over to surrounding businesses? Not defending them or decrying them, but why isn't it a fairly good analogy?
specialist 14y ago
I'm curious to learn who in Hollywood is progressive.

by temphn 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

I think establishment liberals and conservatives have all (correctly) come to the conclusion that might does not make right, and the fact that it has become absurdly easy to violate copyrights for the noble cause of "I am entitled to watch _Resident Evil: Retribution_ on any terms I like" does not somehow obsolete copyright. Every time my fellow nerds see fit to inform me of how outmoded copyrights and rights-supported business models are in the era of the Internet and BitTorrent, I think of how outmoded their business models are, built as they all are on the idea that anyone in the world couldn't pop a shell on them at any moment and wipe their databases clean. But then I remember that they've also stuck up for DDOS attacks as "the digital equivalent of a sit-in", and I give up.

njs12345 14y ago
Do you think copyright terms are too long? I don't think there are too many even here (although they are often vocal) who would advocate completely getting rid of copyright, but the content of that memo did seem sensible to me..
- tptacek 14y ago
  Yes, I do think copyright terms are too long.
Natsu 14y ago
Usually, the notion that the business is "outmoded" is describing one that cannot survive without supporting regulation and that they may not survive even with it due to inherent business problems. Namely, "we can't stop people from sharing stuff unless we control everyone's computer" (or something close to that). That's not really analogous to a hypothetical web-based business with a security hole. If anything, natural selection would then favor those businesses without such flaws, rather than seeing the industry itself wiped out. One might think that it already has, in that I remember the bad old days of CGI programs written in C. (I'm sure there's someone out there who could do that securely, but...)
kbolino 14y ago
I don't know where in the grand scheme of things we decided that knowledge was a form of might, and that its application was inherently wrong. It's furthermore a bit rich to decry the "might" of an individual versus comparatively vast and powerful legal entities like governments and corporations. I really ought to be able to consume content that I have purchased in a manner of my choosing. It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the game company's servers are down, or that I can't keep a backup copy of a movie that's stored on a fragile medium, or that the maker of my electronic device can rescind access to books that I've purchased. I don't take issue with business models based upon copyright because they're "outmoded"; I take issue with the provision of a privilege that exceeds its mandate. Also, I take issue with the idea of calling something "property" without attaching to it any of the trappings of property. Disney pays no tax for "owning" Mickey Mouse. They are not required to estimate in a consistent or coherent manner the value of their "property". They can sue for damages without regard to any actual costs. They can attach limitations to physical property (storage media) that abrogate normal property rights (use and resale). Yes, there are people who want to tear down copyright simply because they want free stuff. I am not one of those people; I gladly pay for the media I consume, and I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted media. But that does not make the system we have acceptable, and it does not make any and all criticism of it illegitimate.
- tptacek 14y ago
  It's preposterous to me that I can't play a single-player game because the game company's servers are down Then don't buy the damn game. How hard is that?
  - kbolino 14y ago
    I use my power as a consumer to favor reasonably priced and less restricted media That's me, in the post to which you replied, making the same point. IF I know beforehand, I won't buy the game. But how do you find out that a single-player game doesn't work when its vendor's servers go down? By owning the game and finding out first-hand (it's not printed on the box). Have you ever tried to return a piece of opened software? If the defect isn't on the disc, exchanging it won't do any good. You cannot appeal to a free market argument like caveat emptor once you've already acceded to a decidedly non-anarchistic world where the government grants and enforces copy and license rights. Consumers have positive rights too, like the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. You can be cavalier and abrasive as long as you're right; when you're not right, then you're just being an ass.
CamperBob2 14y ago
Arguments based on "Might doesn't make right" aren't a good fit for copyright and IP discussion, because IP isn't a natural right. There is absolutely no ethical basis for IP laws besides the consent of those who are governed by them. Put another way, if 85% of people no longer respect a given copyright law, then it's time for that law to change. A comparison can be drawn with speed limits.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
How do you tell whether you're the only right person in a crowd of wrong people, or whether you're the only wrong person in a crowd of right people? (I wonder this myself sometimes about other subjects, and I see it in nearly every comment you make about copyright.)
wnight 14y ago
No, that's not what obsolete copyright. But copyright is intended as a give and take and if I can't watch Resident Evil on my terms they've broken their end of it. I see no need to be the patsy in every situation, either prevented from using something I own, or prevented from owning things I need (not that this is an example, but a compiler perhaps) because of what strike me as unreasonable rules. What obsoletes copyright entirely is that it's a horrible way (like patents) of meeting its modern goals. Its authoritarian roots in censorship make it more focused on controlling distribution than rewarding the creator of valuable things. You (generically) might have noble goals with copyrights but they're a legal minefield stifling activity. And all because we won't reward a creator but merely give them a letter of marque to go try to reward themselves with. If we really cared about the public good (the supposed reason for copyright) or the creators, we'd make copying unrestricted and we'd reward the creators from a public tax pool that we'd fund by stopping all restrictions on copying and the savings from not legislating/litigating/enforcing this nonsense. As for DDOS attacks, in what ways aren't they like sit-ins? In both resources are intentionally wasted, customers blocked, and often the harm spills over to surrounding businesses? Not defending them or decrying them, but why isn't it a fairly good analogy?

specialist 14y ago

I'm curious to learn who in Hollywood is progressive.