We'll be seeing a lot more of this in the next couple of years. The RIAA and the MPAA will get more and more desperate and will call in more favors with industry buddies as they get closer to the recognition that they are losing the war in spite of winning a couple of battles.
In the Netherlands 'Brein', one of the rights organizations has done more to promote the pirate bay than the pirate bay ever could have hoped to achieve by themselves.
This is the biggest case of disruption that I've witnessed in my life so far and even though the outcome seems all but certain it remains to be seen how much damage the wounded bear will be able to inflict before finally keeling over.
We'll know it's over when the music industry distributes music via torrent, by which time they'll be lobbying against direct brain transfer from band to listener.
I think that trend will continue in the future. Either other companies or the Government itself trying to bypass laws by just partnering with other private companies to censor stuff for them. (Remember what happened with Amazon/Paypal/Visa and Wikileaks?)
I'm disappointed to see the destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise) being lauded on HN.
The RIAA and MPAA make deals with artists to distribute their music, and you want to interfere and just steal it instead. It's dishonest, it's juvenile, and it's eroding at the basis of society (equality under the law, property rights, basic respect and goodwill towards others, etc.).
> destruction of property rights (intellectual or otherwise)
These are not the same. Most people do not support the concept of "intellectual property". But for a property to exist in practice, you need majority support, otherwise your property is either just imaginary or you need a totalitarian police state to enforce it.
> the basis of society
The concept of imaginary property is neither supported by a majority of population not in any other way democratically backed. Nobody on this planet has ever voted on it. From its early beginnings, it has been enforced from the top down, decided in shady deals behind closed doors between corrupt officials and industry stake holders and then enforced against the majority.
> steal it
To steal it, you must first reckognize that it is somebody else's property first. But what if you dont consider it property in the first place?
> Yeah, because I just can't stand to pay an enormous amount like $10 or $20 for that book or album I really have to have.
This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it.
> I think it's unreasonable to expect people who make things to be able to profit from them for more than 5 years.
It doesn't matter, because most people don't profit from their works after 5 years, if they ever profit from it at all. The current law helps the Disneys and bestselling authors and has little to no effect on small, independent creators. I don't think we should optimize for corporations, I think we should optimize for everyone being able to reproduce, distribute and build upon their culture - with a period of potential financial motivation to kickstart the creation of new cultural artifacts. If you're still living off your work 5 years on, you're probably already rich.
Girl Talk's music is literally illegal because his instrument comes with a license agreement. What if Stratocasters had come with one?
> Hell, why don't we make all property expire after 5 or 10 years?
This makes no sense. At all. Physical property and my culture are not comparable.
"This isn't about listening to something or reading something. It's about the ability to remix and build upon it."
This kind of statement does not help your case at all.
Pirate Bay is not about remix culture. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Saying that it is just makes every single thing you say on the topic suspect.
I'm not in favor of the kind of restriction we see dicussed in this article. I'm against sopa/pipa/acta style approaches. But I also know that copying music and movies is 99.99% about getting something for free, not about remixing. So please. Be honest here.
Otherwise you just make the other side's arguments more powerful.
Copying is at least about 60% simplicity and convenience, and about 30% better quality and lack of commercial BS. Free is a nice bonus, but I have cheap tastes and more money than I need, so it's really not a driving force as long as the commercial stuff is reasonably priced. I really don't want to hunt through 4 websites/apps to find something. The fact that I know one will have something and no idea if one of the legal alternatives will is the crux of it - I don't have time for the results of their licensing games. It's the same reason I only shop Amazon with Prime.
There is nothing new under the sun. Nearly everything is a remix of older ideas. Even many of Shakespeare's plays were retellings of popular contemporary stories — we wouldn't have Romeo & Juliet if not for the less copyright-crazy era that he lived in. Your suggestion would work better if it were in response to "20 years isn't long enough for a copyright term."
Yes. But Romeo and Juliet apparently borrowed heavily from works from 1562 and 1582[1]. Since he wrote the play in 1591, both works would have been under today's copyright.
I hope this doesn't sound overly aggressive, but you don't seem to have a very firm understanding of how copyright law works. Derivative works are covered as well. You don't have to literally copy every piece of something with full fidelity to fall under it; borrowing heavily can be quite sufficient. For example, an unauthorized encyclopedia of the Harry Potter universe got stomped because it borrowed heavily from the Harry Potter books. It wasn't actually a copy of any book, but it took enough to get slapped down.
IANAL, but I personally have no doubt that Shakespeare would have been sued if today's copyright culture had existed then. He even copied the characters' names (and yes, characters can be covered by copyright), not to mention most of the major plot elements. It wasn't just "Oh, this general idea is kinda similar to that one."
It's the skill of Shakespeare's story telling that made him so great, not the stories themselves. But the stories are protected by copyright, not the skill.
There is nothing new under the sun. Nearly everything is a remix of older ideas.
Well, kind of. But when I suggest creating something "new", I'm not saying don't remix/use old ideas, I say don't remix/use actual previous existing artifacts.
And let's be clear here, the Pirate Bay is not about creating, it's about consuming.
It's sad that you get downvoted for disagreeing. You make a good point. All you have to do is look at their most popular downloads to see that it's a consumer culture. The majority, if not all, of the most popular downloads on Amy given day are all copyrighted music, movies, and software with the odd indie artist giving it out truly for free.
And you don't make a remix with an mp3. Seriously, that's just silly. If you're looking to remix music, which is what I'm mostly talking about, you need to separate tracks to manipulate them and it's damn near impossible to separate out the drums from the vocals from the keys, etc. if you're working from any listening format like mp3 and the like. Remix culture my foot.
It's not like it's unprecedented. Patents expire after 20 years. Many people and organizations get very good use out of that 20 year term.
I'm not sure why there's such a disparity between patents (which cost thousands of dollars and expire after 20 years), trademarks (which cost thousands of dollars, and have to be actively defended), and copyright (which costs nothing, is automatic, and expires after your grandchildren are dead).
Patents are applications of scientific discoveries. Other people are likely to make the same discoveries and want to apply them in a similar way, and that's legitimate.
Copyright covers things that are purely creations of the author. The author holding a copyright on something doesn't prevent or restrict anyone, except people who want to directly use the copyrighted work, which they wouldn't have come up with anyway (e.g. even if I write a novel about wizards, it would not be Harry Potter).
Most property has value without artificial legal limitations.
I agree that 5-10 years is probably too short of a period for intellectual property to be protected. Honestly, putting an arbitrary span of time on the duration is a suboptimal way of accomplishing the goals of copyright law. Why not protect an artist’s creation as long as he or she is alive, and then release it into the public domain upon his or her death? One of the main problems with the current system is that corporations (e.g. Disney) can monopolize culturally-significant works for decades after their creator’s death.
One of the main problems with the current system is that corporations (e.g. Disney) can monopolize culturally-significant works for decades after their creator’s death.
So? How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin?
> How is it a problem that Disney has a monopoly on Pocahontas or Aladdin?
Because if you try to tell any of those stories today, you'll have Disney's lawyers knocking on your door (if not the FBI knocking down your door). And don't forget those stories were already old when Walt Disney was a little boy.
It's actually quite interesting to think about with respect to real property. For example, many Native American tribes couldn't conceive of the idea that one person could own the land; it simply didn't match their mental model. As a result, they ended up ceding, practically, the entire lower 48 states to the European immigrants.
Understanding the Native Americans from an anthropological point of view indicated the Land owned them. The Land provided food, water, shelter, warmth, entertainment, animals, and other things.
The trade of Manhattan for wampum beads is a perfect example: The European thought he got a killer deal because an island was worth far more than those beads. The Native thought, 'the land will be here after he dies, as he belongs to the land'. The native got a better deal because it wasn't a trade.
Native Americans of all the tribes had a very strong sense of ownership. If that was not the case, the Natives would have not signed treaties indicating that this is "X's territory".
If you don't like the words, good, go look at the moral foundation that underlies the idea.
It is a fact of reality that it is morally right to give people ownership rights for things they produce (besides, again, being the basis of society). And why not? Paying for something rather than stealing it (or changing the law so it's not officially "stealing" anymore), just isn't that big of a deal.
I can't justify that claim on HN, for the same reason I can't prove the contents of Physics 101 on HN. If you're curious about my claims, you'll have to go investigate more on your own.
While in some deep (and silly) sense you can't prove the laws of physics, the whole point of science is that the scientific method lets us confidently infer that the laws of physics are a good model for reality through experiments. So in that sense, you can "prove" them, and people have. There is no similar justification for copyright, and claiming copyright as an axiom proves nothing.
> It is a fact of reality that it is morally right to give people ownership rights
> precisely, like physics.
There is no place in the universe where the laws of physics do not apply, however there were and are societies without a notion of property, much less the moral right to property, thus property rights are nothing like the laws of physics. They are a product of your provincial worldview. Of course, property is a useful human invention, but it's nothing more than that.
In the case that I am not replying to a troll, can you provide any links or references? If I wanted to research your point of view, where should I begin?
You may not be able to prove Physics 101 on HN, but you could link you to Feynman's lectures on Physics which would get the interested layman started. That's the sort of thing I'm asking for, for this pro-IP viewpoint.
I'm an Objectivist, i.e., I agree with Ayn Rand. Here is a good reading list: [1].
Honestly, IP rights aren't a special case (setting aside patents, which isn't the topic of this thread); they're straightforward if you understand AR's theory of rights and property.
Another good reference is [2], but since AR's claims are hierarchial, you can't get the "whole story" very well from just looking up some specific topic.
Has it occurred to you that to many people the issue may not be piracy? I don't use the pirate bay, nor do I endorse copyright infringement, but this development nevertheless greatly concerns me.
Well, at least some of us are against RIAA and MPAA, not because we want to steal their stuff, but because they are trying to kill our technologies and tools - which have fair, legal and genuine uses as well. They brought DMCA, made reverse-engineering illegal (even if no infringement happened), pushed for SOPA and are willing to go even further.
DMCA is more than enough protection than the RIAA and MPAA should ever need. Instead they are going over board and trying to get more and more control.
The products of the RIAA and MPAA generally undermine property rights (viz. "F the Police"). Now that they are the ones being f'd, they turn to the people who respect property rights to protect them. No sale, they deserve to pass into the ash heap of history.
I agree that it's a shame, but rather than blaming the RIAA, I blame it on the pirates. The widespread acceptance of piracy among users of BitTorrent is what is ruining BitTorrent, not people asserting their voluntarily-granted contractual rights (RIAA).
That my friend is as anti free speech as it gets, and this censorship really erodes
Actually, by flinging about these terms in an incorrect manner, you are damaging the ability of real defenders of free speech to actually defend free speech. You see, MS is just a company; they can make their software work as they want; that is their right to free speech being excercised. If you don't like it, use different software. Only the government (or, indirectly, entities that have achieved governmental capture) can actually infringe on free speech.
Sure, Microsoft technically has the right to censor whatever they like, just like pg technically has the right to ban you from Hacker News for writing a comment he doesn't like.
Both are disturbing examples of legally infringing on free speech.
Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders all you say is rubbish and plain wrong.
No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech.
And no worries, I do not use any Microsoft products, but I can IM people who do use live messenger from Linux IM apps. I am guessing I will be censored anyway, which is just horrible and outrageous.
No company should be allowed to hinder my free speech.
We've already established why your use of the words "free speech" is invalid, and rather than addressing that, you're just making arbitrary assertions (which, because they are arbitrary, should be ignored).
Until someone can prove a negative impact of piracy on the copyright holders
It's been proven, and is also quite obvious, but again, you're just going on emotion and arbitrary assertion.
Any claim that copyright infringement does not hurt copyright holders is dishonest, and people who make dishonest claims should not be admitted into serious discussions.
I'm responding to gitarr here, not the link itself.
That is quite a blanket statement there, javert. Claims that are well researched with evidence to back them SHOULD be included in the conversation, why not?
So, you assert that any argument against you is inadmissable in the debate. So you're trying to argue that you yourself win this debate no matter what.
That really isn't how this works.
It's not a destruction of property rights. It's the beginning of something new for people that make a living creating things people like to hear and watch.
Speaking as a musician who has had dealings with the RIAA, I won't miss them even one little bit.
I would not be so sure about that. As computer people, we rely on governmental freedom to do what we do, and the politicians and the guys with guns can and will take that away if we stop defending freedom. Which we aren't doing very effectively lately.
Most HNers probably believe some sort of property rights for software (or even blog designs). May here would argue that the GPL is a great license and violators should be punished.
You can also often read that Hollywood and the Music Industry are producing worthless crap, but yet The Pirate Bay is dominated by commercial entertainment, not by Creative Commons content.
Much of it is certainly an emotional reaction to the aggressive behavior of RIAA/MPAA, but it really is sad to see so little capacity to see things from a different perspective.
I really don't see much/any hypocrisy in the comments I've read. There aren't exactly many people just saying "Pirate ALL the things!".
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned by these constant attempts to attack certain technology or websites. Personally, I think that having a society that thinks that censorship is a good way to deal with ideas you dislike, which is where we're heading if this keeps up, is a lot more dangerous than intellectual property theft.
Hell, it has been known for years that certain ISPs even go as far as to throttle ALL bittorrent traffic and despite what the MPAA would like people to believe some of the bittorrent use is perfectly legal. World of Warcraft actually uses bittorrent for their patches.
As well, there are the facts that:
-Laws have been passed that are so excessive in punishment that judges are actually slashing the penalties, and there are even stronger laws that lobbyists are trying to get passed.
-This idea of protecting intellectual property at all costs has led to modern electronics devices being very rigidly controlled to the point that if you try to modify YOUR device to just install linux or something, you might be a criminal.
-Copyright lasts a ridiculously long time. There should definitely be some rights so that the creator can benefit, but almost a century is too long.
I think it is a reaction to the copyright cartel, but not necessarily an emotional one. The cartel's position is crazy enough and harmful enough that I'm much closer to being on TPB's side than theirs. The enemy of my enemy. Similarly, if a rabid bear got loose in my house, I might temporarily befriend someone who I'd caught taking from my wallet — my interests align more with the thief's than the rabid bear's.
It's interesting, because there are sources on the internet that catalogue a taxonomy for all manner of fallacious arguments (Wikipedia is one obvious example), but there doesn't seem to be a name for claiming that internet posts written by the people in set A are hypocritical because they presumably-contradict either 1) posts by people in set B happened to appear on the same website, or 2) some hand-waving characterization of the zeitgeist of the site's denizens.
This is clearly fallacious, I don't know why people keep using this technique, and we really should give it a name so that it can be referred to by shorthand. (Any suggestions?)
If you happen to find a person in the set A intersect B, then you've got a case against that individual. But nobody seems to go to that much effort.
It's called the ecological fallacy -- the idea that a phenomenon which is observed (or in the GP's case, totally made up) at the population level can be automatically assumed to apply at the individual level. Stereotypes are a common example of this fallacy.
It may not be a rigorous proof that some individual are hypocritical, but I think it is an indication that it is likely that there are some individuals that are hypocritical.
Supporting the GPL but not copyright in general is actually a completely valid stance. The GPL is the inverse of copyright--copyright normally protects the rights of distributors at the expense of customers; the GPL protects the rights of customers at the "expense" of distributors (this is why commercial companies don't like GPL software). The fact that the GPL is based on copyright is incidental. In fact, I suspect many people who support the GPL would be happy if the rights it protected could be given to customers without relying on copyright; unfortunately, that is not the case right now.
It still rests on the assumption that content creators can set the terms for the use of their products. Something that is disregarded by the hacker community when it comes to films and music.
In the Netherlands 'Brein', one of the rights organizations has done more to promote the pirate bay than the pirate bay ever could have hoped to achieve by themselves.
This is the biggest case of disruption that I've witnessed in my life so far and even though the outcome seems all but certain it remains to be seen how much damage the wounded bear will be able to inflict before finally keeling over.
edit:
This prompted me to post a thing I wrote a while ago but didn't publish: http://jacquesmattheij.com/The+death+throes+of+an+industry