What I know is this copyright business is fundamentally incompatible with the digital age we're living in. It's trivial to copy. Selling copies makes no sense.
To actually enforce copyright in the 21st century, there must be no software freedom. Only well-behaving software that refuses to copy will be allowed to run. I don't think anyone here on HN wants that.
It's also trivial to stab someone. Not all crimes can or should be prevented by technical means.
In fact most cannot even in principle be prevented. Most of law depends on detection, not prevention.
That's where the "there must be no software freedom" is exactly what might be mandated. It's trivial to re-purpose Apple CSAM mechanism to do this "detection" and something that might actually happen in the future.
Now nearly everyone on this planet has a pocket computer capable of creating and transmitting unlimited numbers of any piece of data at practically zero cost. People don't even realize they're doing it, it's so natural. They create truckloads of derivative works of copyrighted material every single day in the form of memes.
Like I said, you're making no sense at all.
With or without technology (you meant with, right? no that makes no sense either) copyright is clearly enforceable.
We have over 300 years of enforcement on copyright, even when it's trivial to copy.
Technology, or copying, wasn't invented this century, you know. "Piracy has proven that"... we have hundreds of years of easy reproduction pre-copyright too.
> either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code.
"Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again".
See how it's nonsense?
(I can't reply deeper because HN limitations)
I'd argue the world is different now. We've only had general purpose computers and ubiquitous ultra-cheap networking for the last few decades. Infringing copying on any scale required significant financial investment in the past. I think it's also safe to say there was typically financial incentive behind most mass infringement in the past (i.e. "bootlegging").
I'm not sure that's the case today. I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections.
> > either we abolish copyright, or all computers will eventually be turned into consumer appliances and we'll need programming licenses to write code.
> "Either we make murder legal, or nobody may own a knife or other sharp object ever again".
I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby (though, admittedly, the gun lobby in the United States does kinda fit that bill-- but that's a separate issue). There most certainly is a "regulate general purpose computers" lobby (e.g. "circumvention devices" and the DMCA).
> See how it's nonsense?
Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.
No it didn't. More, yes. But 40 years ago you just needed two VCRs and a blank tape. The only thing preventing mass reproduction was copyright law.
And pre-copyright this is also what happened. Because it was just not that hard. Even 500 years ago.
> I'm guessing most infringement is today is casual-- created by the ease of copying brought on by everybody carrying around mobile computers with those ultra-cheap network connections.
I bet less now than 20 years ago. Today you can buy spotify, apple music, google music, or whatever. You can stream stuff.
Blockbusters didn't die because of piracy, but because of streaming.
> I'm not aware of the "legalize murder to preserve freedom" lobby
It's your argument. If a thing cannot be prevented, then it should be legal. Right?
> Equating copyright law and murder is equally nonsense.
That's wilfully missing the point.
Take shoplifting instead, then.
The actual argument is that society has fundamentally changed after the invention of computers. People copy, transfer and even modify copyrighted works every day without even blinking. It happens on an even larger scale than and at a fraction of the cost of VHS tape copying. Copyright no longer makes sense in the 21st century: it's become natural to infringe.
The fact that copyright no longer guarantees artficial scarcity is just yet another sign that it should probably go away.
> See how it's nonsense?
It's not. Computers are increasingly non-free and DRM is a big reason. The copyright holders want guarantees that I can't run unathorized software against their data even though it's my machine.
Combine this with worldwide governamental desire to regulate or ban encryption. It's an existential threat to the computing freedom we all enjoy today.
This applies to every single crime. Try getting the police or courts to do anything about your stolen bike. They won't. You can have the name of the thief, with video of them stealing it, and it won't be worth their time.
Also won't be worth your time and money to sue them civilly.
So theft should be legal?
Not really. Crimes are limited by reality. One criminal can only do so much.
With copyright infringement you have insane situations such as over 80% of a country's population being guilty of it. At this point, is it even a crime? More like a local custom.
> Try getting the police or courts to do anything about your stolen bike. They won't.
Maybe in the US. It's rather common here. I have examples in my family. I see it in the news nearly every week: some drug addict steals a phone, police arrests him and the phone is returned to its owner.
> So theft should be legal?
From what you just told me, it looks like it already is.
It's an easy choice for me. As it should be for anyone who browses Hacker News. In a copyright world we won't be able to hack anymore.
So let the creators sort their business out. They'll find a way or go bankrupt. We must not keep inching ever closer to the dystopia where the government and monopolist corporations own our computers.
Absolutely no need to make it technically impossible, or even hard. They'll do just fine suing people who infringe, and/or get criminal conviction.
As they have been doing.
They'll be just fine, don't worry about copyright holders.
I'm not. I'm worried about the freedom to program general purpose computers and the freedom to create derivative works. It seems like copyright holders have been consistently using their lobby to make both harder.
Then why do they keep doing it? Get them to stop, please. Make them stop adding DRM to everything. Make them get rid of DMCA anticircumvention laws. Just stop interfering with our computers.
