HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

The best talks and videos of Hacker News.

Hacker News Comments on
The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For...

Google TechTalks · Youtube · 3 HN points · 6 HN comments
HN Theater has aggregated all Hacker News stories and comments that mention Google TechTalks's video "The Surprising History of Copyright and What It Means For...".
Youtube Summary
Google Tech Talks
August 15, 2006

Karl Fogel

ABSTRACT
Copyright is derived from a 16th-century English censorship law, later turned into a monopoly right to subsidize distribution. This history is somewhat at odds with the modern conception of copyright, and an understanding of it is increasingly important today, as the economics of distribution are changing radically.

This talk will give the audience a mid-level overview of copyright's history, with pointers to further reading, followed by a survey of alternative economic bases for creation and distribution, and a discussion of what these dynamics mean for companies, like Google, that flourish in an environment of frictionless information...
HN Theater Rankings

Hacker News Stories and Comments

All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.
Why would any fan of someones work buy a knock-off copy? We can safely assume they are a fan, otherwise why would even buy it?

Also, painting is a physical object. It's a one of a kind.

EDIT: your objection and many many other questions like that are nicely argued against here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI (The Surprising History of Copyright talk by Karl Fogel)

ddtaylor
Do you think people will want to create new stories if others can undercut and sell their work for less?
josefx
Do you know how many stories cannot be published because people sit on the IP? There are unpublished "movies" that only exist to maintain exclusive licensing deals that outright prohibit studios from sitting on the IP, letting the original authors work rot until it is forgotten.

Or we can talk about the mess you get with too many groups involved? Do you know who has the rights to Westwoods Dune? Westwood itself had a limited time license for games based on the movie Dune, which also had a license based on the Dune books. So you would have to deal with three license owners to make a Game involving the Ordos faction. Have fun convincing EA, whoever owns the movie rights and the original authors family that you can make a new game worth their signature on a new licensing agreement (you could probably manage if you have a small country to sell).

exo762
Yes. Definitely. Absolute staggering majority of people writing books don't sell even one copy. And my bet is - they know what are the chances.

EDIT1:

More than that. People don't live of royalties. Publishers do. Can people create without being paid upfront by publishers? Obviously yes. They can be paid upfront in kickstarter-like arrangement. They can be paid via donations later. They can even be paid via "retroactive funding of public goods" [0]. Or they can be never paid - just as they are today.

[0] - https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-good...

EDIT2:

Also, imagine how much good could come of long-standing IP properties owned by Disney if not for them sitting on it. Vide disaster that is current management of Star Wars.

>>It only creates a monopoly for other's books.

That is far from "all it does", YouTube is a prime example of the suppression forces inherent in copy right law, and the amount of abuse that occurs chilling speech and public participation

>>You really should consider the other part of the equation. Authors need to eat.

No I really should not. That is not the goal nor desire of copyright law. profit is not the reason copyright was added as a constitutional power of the US Government nor should that be the metric for which we judge the effectiveness of copyright law

>. They can only eat if publishers pay them.

Again this is incorrect, and becomes more incorrect as time goes on. Through Copyright publishers act as gate keepers which prohibits new an innovative ways of funding creative works beyond the traditional copyright model

Copyright from its inception has had a questionable [1][2] history even when looked at from the creators point of view

> No "monopoly" means no paid authors

There is nothing further form the truth than a statement that absence copyright all creative work would cease. OpenSource software, Open Documentation Projects, and the huge amount of Free Culture works fly in the face of that statement.

Further it is provable and self evidently false that publishers and traditional publishing models are the only or even best method to fund creative works in the 21st century

[1] https://questioncopyright.org/promise

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI

gamblor956
Youtube is in fact a great example of the flexibility of the copyright program. You have millions of hours of professionally-produced work, and millions more hours of people commenting, analyzing, critiquing, or otherwise engaged in the marketplace of ideas with respect to those works...all within the framework of the copyright system. That doesn't include the billions of hours of non-professional content uploaded to the site.

That is not the goal nor desire of copyright law. profit is not the reason copyright was added as a constitutional power

In fact, providing creators with profits is exactly the reason copyright law was enshrined in the Constitution: to incentivize creators to do their creating in the US. (The copyright and patent system merely formalized and codified an exclusive monopoly system for inventions originally developed in Europe during the Middle Ages.)

syshum
>>Youtube is in fact a great example of the flexibility of the copyright program.

I can not believe anyone can say with a strait face that YouTube is an example of copyright working

The number of people that get hit with false DMCA, people claiming copyright on NASA videos for example, or video clearly in the public domain, or not accounting for Fair use at all (which given your authoritarian copyright maximalist other comments I bet you support removing fair use completely from copyright ) points to a Broken System

DMCA is abhorrent law, as 95 year copyrights, no sane person would support them

>>Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers.

No they really are not, and have never been

Copyright, historically, is a tool for Information Gatekeeping, censorship, and profiteering. Not one of benfiting the Creators of content

See the Talk on the History of Copyright https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI

We see this every day in the modern era where copyright is used to censor critics, prevent research (especially security research), and prevents more content from being created by locking up ideas for over a century

Copyright is a Negative for Society, and for Creators

>>but that's all it is, a justification. And in my opinion, that justification results in less original content.

Given that more content from more people is being created today that at any point in human history runs counter to your statement

Copyright is about protecting the Gatekeepers, the Movies Studios, the Music Labels, the Book Publisher, not about protecting creators.

Karl Fogel does a great job explaining the History of copyright and why is it not needed to protect creators

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI

>> it's our own propensity to not respect the rights of the creator which has encouraged the adoption of DRM.

I do not recognize them as rights. Copyright is a Positive Right created by government. I am a supporter of Negative Rights theory and do not support any Positive rights at all

>>The rest of your argument centers on DRM;

it is not just about DRM,DRM is how they attempt to force my property to disobey my commands, it is also about the law the DRM is attempting to enforce on my machine

>> The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to produce creative works

False, the purpose, and only reason for copy right is to promote the useful sciences, all other reasons are UnConstitutional (from a US Stand point anyway)

The Surprising History of Copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI

http://questioncopyright.org/learn

work-on-828
The full text of the clause is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

"Creative works" is as reasonable shorthand for "useful arts and sciences" as "privacy" is for "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"

Feb 14, 2015 · 1 points, 0 comments · submitted by exo762
Jan 16, 2012 · 2 points, 0 comments · submitted by jamesbritt
HN Theater is an independent project and is not operated by Y Combinator or any of the video hosting platforms linked to on this site.
~ yaj@
;laksdfhjdhksalkfj more things
yahnd.com ~ Privacy Policy ~
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.