5 ms·

It's hard to justify the right for people to break copyright law. Considering that copyright isn't a natural right in the first place, I don't see the problem.

amichail 17y ago
Obviously getting rid of copyright would have a devastating effect on innovation and creativity.
- fizx 17y ago
  Obviously?
  - amichail 17y ago
    Actually no... sorry. I forgot my own blog post on this topic. In particular, not much may change on the web if we get rid of patents and copyright: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=920911 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=920911
- Retric 17y ago
  Really? I have read many great books that where never in any way protected by copyright. Honestly, writers are compensated for around 30-40% of the content I read and the only advantage I see is a slightly higher quality of copy editing. On a more serious note, for profit content is less innovative because it's targeting the widest audience possible. Walking around a book store you can find a lot of bland tasteless garbage to fit even the most snobbish pallet. But, there are other approaches. Wikipedia is a perfect example of what happens when you separate the content creation process from direct monetary gain as is Hacker News and a thousand other places that you never really think about. PS: I don't care one way or the other, but suggesting that copyright is vital for innovation and creativity is just silly. Edit: NM, I missed the sarcasm on that one.
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    suggesting that copyright is vital for innovation and creativity is just silly You realise there are no CC licenses without copyright. That anyone can take my published work and reprint it as their own without any attribution. Copyright has been much abused by big business, but that's capitalism at work, we shouldn't disavow people of the rights to an interest in the results of their labour. Copyright only works as a contract between creators and the public. We're doing our part by protecting rights of content creators via the treaties and laws but we are being denied our part of the contract - having works enter the public domain in a timely fashion. Copyright IMO needs fixing not removing.
    - uriel 17y ago
      > Copyright has been much abused by big business, but that's capitalism at work Rubish, copyright is completely incompatible with capitalism: copyright consists of government granted monopolies.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        The "capitalism at work" part is the manipulation of copyright to prevent works from entering the public domain. The motive is corporate profit: ensuring those with property retain it and any worth it can generate despite a socialist contract agreeing to give up that property after a certain period.
        uriel 17y ago
        That is not "capitalism at work", that is rent seeking and one of the many very common forms of government failure. Just because the motive of something is profit, it doesn't mean it is capitalism, the motive of taxes is also profit (for special interests), but that doesn't mean they are capitalism at work.
        pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        The stated motive of taxes is usually the public good; if it's profit for special interests then you're probably talking of fraud. I still contend that the pressure by corporations to increase copyright terms in order to maximise the profitability of held IP assets is "capitalism at work". It is sustained holding of IP away from the public domain preventing others from using that IP [for profitable production]. Smells like capitalism to me.
bonaldi 17y ago
Just as a data point -- it is an inalienable human right, at least as defined by the UN. Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. (Not that this by any means justifies or demands anything like the copyright regime we have now, let alone this ridiculous power-grab extension of it. And people are of course free to waive their rights at any time.)
- tjogin 17y ago
  But enforcing that law means breaking an other inalienable human right; that of privacy. And I'd say that law is more important.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Can't believe you had 0 on this. Great comment.
  - tezza 17y ago
    It's for the courts to decide that balance, our opinions on the merits are irrelevant
    - kls 17y ago
      The second amendment falsifies this statement. The only reason our opinions are irrelevant, is because of complacency and the inevitable slide towards tyranny that every world power faces as it ages. The government feels no threat from the people and therefore feels comfortable in selling our freedoms to the highest bidder. If the populous where not so complacent or indoctrinated then our leaders would think twice before leveraging our rights against us. This is a simple concept that the founding fathers understood all to well. They knew the constitution was a piece of paper and that individuals in the government would always look at it as such.
      - tezza 17y ago

amichail 17y ago

Obviously getting rid of copyright would have a devastating effect on innovation and creativity.

fizx 17y ago
Obviously?
- amichail 17y ago
  Actually no... sorry. I forgot my own blog post on this topic. In particular, not much may change on the web if we get rid of patents and copyright: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=920911 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=920911
Retric 17y ago
Really? I have read many great books that where never in any way protected by copyright. Honestly, writers are compensated for around 30-40% of the content I read and the only advantage I see is a slightly higher quality of copy editing. On a more serious note, for profit content is less innovative because it's targeting the widest audience possible. Walking around a book store you can find a lot of bland tasteless garbage to fit even the most snobbish pallet. But, there are other approaches. Wikipedia is a perfect example of what happens when you separate the content creation process from direct monetary gain as is Hacker News and a thousand other places that you never really think about. PS: I don't care one way or the other, but suggesting that copyright is vital for innovation and creativity is just silly. Edit: NM, I missed the sarcasm on that one.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  suggesting that copyright is vital for innovation and creativity is just silly You realise there are no CC licenses without copyright. That anyone can take my published work and reprint it as their own without any attribution. Copyright has been much abused by big business, but that's capitalism at work, we shouldn't disavow people of the rights to an interest in the results of their labour. Copyright only works as a contract between creators and the public. We're doing our part by protecting rights of content creators via the treaties and laws but we are being denied our part of the contract - having works enter the public domain in a timely fashion. Copyright IMO needs fixing not removing.
  - uriel 17y ago
    > Copyright has been much abused by big business, but that's capitalism at work Rubish, copyright is completely incompatible with capitalism: copyright consists of government granted monopolies.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      The "capitalism at work" part is the manipulation of copyright to prevent works from entering the public domain. The motive is corporate profit: ensuring those with property retain it and any worth it can generate despite a socialist contract agreeing to give up that property after a certain period.
      - uriel 17y ago
        That is not "capitalism at work", that is rent seeking and one of the many very common forms of government failure. Just because the motive of something is profit, it doesn't mean it is capitalism, the motive of taxes is also profit (for special interests), but that doesn't mean they are capitalism at work.
        pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        The stated motive of taxes is usually the public good; if it's profit for special interests then you're probably talking of fraud. I still contend that the pressure by corporations to increase copyright terms in order to maximise the profitability of held IP assets is "capitalism at work". It is sustained holding of IP away from the public domain preventing others from using that IP [for profitable production]. Smells like capitalism to me.

bonaldi 17y ago

Just as a data point -- it is an inalienable human right, at least as defined by the UN. Article 27 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. (Not that this by any means justifies or demands anything like the copyright regime we have now, let alone this ridiculous power-grab extension of it. And people are of course free to waive their rights at any time.)

tjogin 17y ago
But enforcing that law means breaking an other inalienable human right; that of privacy. And I'd say that law is more important.
- rjurney 17y ago
  Can't believe you had 0 on this. Great comment.
- tezza 17y ago
  It's for the courts to decide that balance, our opinions on the merits are irrelevant
  - kls 17y ago
    The second amendment falsifies this statement. The only reason our opinions are irrelevant, is because of complacency and the inevitable slide towards tyranny that every world power faces as it ages. The government feels no threat from the people and therefore feels comfortable in selling our freedoms to the highest bidder. If the populous where not so complacent or indoctrinated then our leaders would think twice before leveraging our rights against us. This is a simple concept that the founding fathers understood all to well. They knew the constitution was a piece of paper and that individuals in the government would always look at it as such.
    - tezza 17y ago