

Hey Hadopi, You’re Breaking The Law. - vy8vWJlco
http://torrentfreak.com/hey-hadopi-youre-breaking-the-law-we-made-three-strikes-illegal-across-all-europe-130616/

======
JosephBrown
I'm not necessarily pro or anti sharing, but calling piracy "the good deed of
sharing culture and knowledge" is a good way for me to never take you
seriously.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
"Piracy" is pretty anti-sharing language IMHO.

------
tzs
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how me not being allowed to
make and distribute an unlimited number complete copies of, say, "Iron Man 3",
somehow limits my fundamental right to freedom of expression.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
How can I reason and speak about something I can't look at but for second hand
testimony? Why should anyone limit his or herself to the second-hand testimony
of people who could afford to look at the facts when the only obstacles are
social? Why are facts, cultural or otherwise, even behind a gate? Why should I
be a second-class human because I can't afford to license the means to think?

To put it differently: reduce, reuse, recycle. Once a work is made, why should
anyone pay for it again beyond the cost of transcription? If investors can't
cope with the product being the dividend, maybe the effort wasn't worth it...

(Of course, these are just my own thoughts.)

~~~
FreeInfo4All
Wow, amongst other things, that makes a good case for giving law enforcement
agencies direct access to our private information. You're right: why have
"second hand testimony" if you can get it firsthand? After all, the NSA is
only making copies of all our information, so we are not deprived of anything
either.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
On the contrary, privacy has nothing to do with copyright, or rather: they are
at entirely opposite ends of a spectrum.

Privacy is an extension of one's right to be secure in one's body, and free in
one's thoughts. It is non-transferrable. Disclosure is boolean: it was either
voluntary, in which case it does not impose any obligations on those who would
reason about it (and copy it, and...), or it was involuntary, in which case it
is damage (as in the case of NSA spying). Money doesn't enter into it.

Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is typically transferable, and
it typically imposes obligations even when licensed. It is about monetizing
copies at the expense of free expression and thought, and that expense can be
bought, sold, in any measure, at the discretion of the holder. It is intended
to be a tool to meter out copies for as much remuneration as possible, not to
keep them to one's self forever with no intention of ever monetizing them.

~~~
FreeInfo4All
My point (that is admittedly not really clear) is that privacy and copyright
are just restrictions on what you can do with information. But allow me to
address your points in a wall of text nobody will read:

> Privacy is an extension of one's right to be secure in one's body, and free
> in one's thoughts.

Copyright is an extension of one's right to be paid for the value provided by
their labor. Only, in this case, the labor is of an intellectual nature that
can be infinitely replicated without recompense. Significantly, each copy of
that labor provides substantially the same amount of value regardless of the
number of copies, so N copies provides almost N times the value. I don't
understand the argument that the remuneration for that value should be
anything other than a function of the value provided; anything less than a
linear relation looks dangerously, to me, like communism. Not to mention that
"Once a work is made, why should anyone pay for it again beyond the cost of
transcription?" is a direct corollary to the "you should get an A for effort!"
fallacy.

> It is non-transferrable. Disclosure is boolean: it was either voluntary, in
> which case it does not impose any obligations on those who would reason
> about it (and copy it, and...), or it was involuntary, in which case it is
> damage (as in the case of NSA spying). Money doesn't enter into it.

Two things: 1\. Copyright has to be transferable else its economic value would
be severely restricted.

2\. Privacy may not be "transferrable" (the term does not really make sense
for "privacy"), but it absolutely is _tradeable_ , and it's hardly as boolean
as you make it out to be. As Google and Facebook show us so clearly, people
will gladly trade their privacy in exchange for services that would otherwise
have a monetary cost. So it definitely is tradeable. But is that really
"voluntary"? Well, if anyone dug into Microsoft's "Scroogled" campaign, it was
inspired by a survey where the surprising finding was that a large fraction of
users _did not know_ that their private information was being mined by Google,
and a significant portion of them said _did not like_ it. (I'd like to say the
numbers were 45% and 70% respectively, but I can't be sure.) Now: Is that
voluntary? What if they didn't know, but did not mind; is that voluntary? What
if they knew and didn't mind, but hadn't considered the implications; would
you call uninformed decisions like that voluntary?

3\. And that's also a clear example that privacy is, in fact, monetizable, so
money certainly enters into it.

> Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is typically transferable,
> and it typically imposes obligations even when licensed.

Just like money is a government-granted monopoly on a unique serial number.
It's not licensed, but it does impose obligations on whoever owns a hard copy
at the moment (no copies).

> It is about monetizing copies at the expense of free expression and thought,
> and that expense can be bought, sold, in any measure, at the discretion of
> the holder. It is intended to be a tool to meter out copies for as much
> remuneration as possible, not to keep them to one's self forever with no
> intention of ever monetizing them.

Yes it is about monetizing copies; or to put it in Psuedo-economical terms, it
is about ensuring economic compensation for the value provided by each copy to
the consumer. "As much remuneration as possible" would ideally be econ-speak
for "what the market will bear", but this does not apply well to copyright
because of the severe market distortion that widespread piracy introduces.
What you have instead is some portion of honest (or technically unsavvy)
consumers paying more to compensate for large number of pirates who derive
value without paying for it.

But, no it is _not_ at the expense of free expression and thought.

1\. Free thought is not affected _at all_. Copyright does not stop you from
thinking anything. It only stops you from profiting from copies of _other
people 's expression_, which is in no way related to restricting what goes on
in your head.

2\. It only restricts your "free expression" to the extent that your "free
expression" exactly matches somebody's copyrighted expression, or aspects
thereof. Unlike patents, it is almost impossible that two independently
created works will match _exactly_ in any significant aspect.

3\. True, some derivative expression is unfairly caught in the copyright web,
especially when there is no clear way to extricate the creative aspect from
the original work. The one example that I personally lament are Anime Music
Videos; there used to be a ton of awesome work with very original and
meticulous synchronization of music to completely unrelated videos that
suddenly had their audio stripped on Youtube. However, if you look at the
bigger picture, almost all copyright infringements are simply copying original
works to avoid paying for it, either with money or patience.

4\. Even then, tons of derivative work gets through just fine, simply because
it makes no economical sense to stamp it out. Literary fanfic is one example.

5\. The petabytes of torrents exchanged daily (yes, petabytes in the _US
alone_ ; look up the numbers) is hardly "free expression and thought". Ponder
how many movies/songs/games that is, even if you assume a ridiculously
generous 50% of the torrent traffic to be legit. It's just the "expression" of
the "thought" that somebody else's work should be had for "free".

The image you seem to have of copyright restricting "free expression and
thought" is based on a focus on a secondary effect of copyright laws that is
actually a very small edge case in reality.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
> Copyright is an extension of one's right to be paid for the value provided
> by their labor.

No - labour is the work, effort, and time - and charging twice is fraud.

> anything less than a linear relation looks dangerously, to me, like
> communism.

McCarthyism and FUD. Also, when you watch pornography, the terroists win.

>> Copyright is a government-granted monopoly...

> Just like money...

OK, this is part of a larger tangent, but this is worth setting apart and
responding to. No, money is not a government-granted monopoly. Money is
whatever I accept as payment and that does not need a government (a government
of one is hardly a government). (As for more conventional forms of money, we
all together gave our respective _governments_ monopolies on that - only in a
different sense than you mean - not the other way around.)

> "As much remuneration as possible" would ideally be econ-speak for "what the
> market will bear", but this does not apply well to copyright because of the
> severe market distortion that widespread piracy introduces.

That works both ways: charging for ideas has distorted access to knowledge via
the Internet. You might claim that without copyright there would be less
"stuff" on the Internet, but there is nothing supporting that. Humans are
creative by nature whereas humans would not naturally clean toilets - and thus
should be paid for it.

> What you have instead is some portion of honest (or technically unsavvy)
> consumers paying more to compensate for large number of pirates who derive
> value without paying for it.

Remove the part where you call people who share their access to information
freely "dishonest," and you have simply repeated the childhood moral
"knowledge is power" (and "sharing is caring").

> 1\. Copyright does not stop you from thinking anything. It only stops you
> from profiting from copies of other people's expression, which is in no way
> related to restricting what goes on in your head.

Profiting implies selling, which is not the case with simple/private copying -
unless you mean profiting abstractly, as in increased capacity for thought,
then yes - and in which case you have paraphrased me well.

> 5\. The petabytes of torrents exchanged daily (yes, petabytes in the US
> alone; look up the numbers) is hardly "free expression and thought". Ponder
> how many movies/songs/games that is, even if you assume a ridiculously
> generous 50% of the torrent traffic to be legit.

It's almost as though the only reason people pay their ISP is for the ability
to make copies.

~~~
FreeInfo4All
Well, somebody read my wall of text after all! Here's another!

> No - labour is the work, effort, and time - and charging twice is fraud.

I don't understand. How are you charging twice if you ask two people to
compensate you for the value you provided? Value is everything. Or do you
think people should be paid for their "work, effort, and time" for just
digging holes up and filling them up again?

> McCarthyism and FUD. Also, when you watch pornography, the terroists win.

I'm guessing you haven't lived in a communist regime, but know anyone who did?
I know some from ex-communist countries like Romania, old USSR, some current
day states in India, etc. They all have a deep horror of communism. There is a
reason it fails hard.

> Money is whatever I accept as payment and that does not need a government (a
> government of one is hardly a government).

The point was, information has value of varying, contextually-dependent
amounts, either inherently or artificially through monopolies, and
uncontrolled duplication can have very bad economic effects. Money is just one
example. Copying information is not just copying bits. Ask yourself why
printing money is restricted. Ask yourself why bitcoin works the way it does.

> That works both ways: charging for ideas has distorted access to knowledge
> via the Internet.

Distorted, how? If something gives you value, be it physical or intellectual,
charging for it is in no way "market distortion". There are various
distortions that _can_ come into play, but they are exactly the same as with
physical goods.

> You might claim that without copyright there would be less "stuff" on the
> Internet, but there is nothing supporting that.

You really should talk to some musicians. For many, to make a living, they
have to work a day job and/or do live shows (which is not an option for many),
which takes time that they could instead used to create new stuff. If you
searched for threads on this topic on HN, you'll hear this lament frequently
from people who actually are musicians. So yes, there is support for that.

> Humans are creative by nature whereas humans would not naturally clean
> toilets - and thus should be paid for it.

No, humans are not creative by nature, _some_ are. And of those, vanishingly
few are good at it. For every billion of amateur artist videos on YouTube, you
only get one phenomenon like Bieber(!!)

What humans _are_ , however, is greedy and willing to take advantage of others
the moment they think they can get away with it. Ask yourself why we have so
many laws.

BTW, do you like coding? In that case, I'd guess your a coder by nature. I
know a few MBAs who'd love to get their world changing ideas implemented for
free.

> Remove the part where you call people who share their access to information
> freely "dishonest," and you have simply repeated the childhood moral
> "knowledge is power" (and "sharing is caring").

I don't really get this point... Are you saying people paying for content are
stupid?

And if sharing is caring, why don't you share your bank account details? Just
information after all.

> Profiting implies selling, which is not the case with simple/private copying
> - unless you mean profiting abstractly, as in increased capacity for
> thought, then yes - and in which case you have paraphrased me well.

I meant selling. Copyright law specifically applies to distribution, not
downloading. So you agree "increased capacity of thought" is "profiting"! Wow,
that sure sounds like you're deriving value from something, and should maybe,
you know, kinda, like, sorta want to pay for that benefit if remuneration was
asked for? No? Not the least bit? You just want people to put in labor to
create new information so that you can benefit from it without paying? Simply
because you can get away with it?

Hmm, I can guess why communism failed.

And going back to tzs' point, pirating Iron Man 3 increases "capacity of
thought"? Really?

> It's almost as though the only reason people pay their ISP is for the
> ability to make copies.

It's almost as if you're deliberately trying to avoid addressing my point that
information is more than just bits and making copies can have economic
consequences.

~~~
vy8vWJlco
_" if sharing is caring, why don't you share your bank account details?"_

(Repeating myself) Privacy != copyright.

 _" And going back to tzs' point, pirating Iron Man 3 increases "capacity of
thought"? Really?"_

Sure, why not? A specific case like Iron Man 3, is frankly irrelevant when
trying to formulate a general rule though - unless it provides a
contradiction. The case of Iron Man 3 does not contradict my general rule -
namely, that restricting copying for the sake of copyright is immoral (and my
mom's rule: "sharing is caring"). Iron Man 3 is not worth copying IMHO, but
just because I don't want it doesn't mean I care if someone else does. _I
cannot know how watching Iron Man 3 might help someone, and I 'm not about to
guess._ But, it would be immoral IMHO to prevent them from copying it, since
they are the ones paying for the process (ISP, HD, PC... It's all on their
dime), and since copies are not held exclusively.

The work that went into making Iron Man 3 _is done_. The copies should have
nothing to do with the economics: if the product of the process was not viable
- without basing that viability on artificially impeding others' private
computing and thinking actions - it should not have been done. I have no
obligation to subsidize any wasteful endeavor.

Similarly, I do not keep Justin Bieber from charging for his time, in advance
(like kickstarter) or afterwards (like most jobs), or accepting gratuities at
any point. However, I do _not_ support forcing gratuities with copyright.
Copies are as good as thoughts to me, and IMHO it is simply too far past the
line of reasonable for a society that claims to value knowledge to willfully
prevent access to it. Paying for copies should be optional IMHO. Not everyone
tips the same, and I am not breaking the law if I walk out without leaving
anything.

 _" How are you charging twice if you ask two people to compensate you for the
value you provided?"_

It is paying more than once to pay more than the time and resources that go
into a thing. Don't get me wrong - I am often willing to pay a premium (more
than once) for physical goods rather than go without, or roll my own, but my
good will only goes so far and I will generally not buy something terribly
overpriced. In the case of physical objects, it _is immoral_ to keep/take
something without paying. In the case of copies, it is _immoral_ to restrict
copying _for lack of paying_. The difference _is_ stark, and has _everything_
to do with their respective natures and respective exclusivities. A physical
book can only be in one place at a time - holding it deprives everyone else.
Copies, quite to the contrary, can be made freely and each new copy does
exactly zero damage to anyone. Again, do not confuse copyright for privacy. I
will defend privacy. I will not defend copyright.

Your use of "value" is revealing. How "valuable" an idea/copy is to me is
known only to me, and dies with me - you can have _no_ insight into my mind
other than what I reveal to you, nor should you (privacy!) - that's precisely
why gratuities are optional, and why the copyright is pure fantasy (copyright
and privacy contradict). Your economic rationalization of copyright is based
on an insight you have no access to, and which there is no exclusivity to
leverage me or anyone into revealing, since obligation is proportional to
exclusivity. Since copies are not exclusive at all, obligation is negligible
and payment ("should be"; de facto "is") 100% optional.

People share things they have with people they like. It makes sense that in
the case of digital copies, without the exclusivity property, people will
share liberally and anyone arguing against it will go blue in the face.
Fighting that is fighting human nature...

 _" I know a few MBAs who'd love to get their world changing ideas implemented
for free."_

I do not work for free and do not expect anyone to, however: if I have already
made something digital, anyone is free to use it.

 _" Ask yourself why printing money is restricted."_

Money is not simply a copy, money is a unit of obligation embodied uniquely in
an object or number. It retains exclusivity. A new unauthorized bill is a lie
about an obligation, and an obligation that can be used for real goods,
amounting to theft. Someone listening to Justin Bieber is not claiming to _be_
Justin Bieber, and in no way harms Justin Bieber and is in no way "theft"
since you cannot "trade" a copy as you would trade money because of the lack
of exclusivity (even though copyright proponents really wish they could).
Saying a copy reduces Justin Bieber's income because it represents lost income
is like saying "because I said so." It's circular. Copyright is the only
reason people expect payment for copies, and forcing payment is the reason
people keep promoting copyright. (Fallacies 101) People _were_ able to get
away with it with books and CDs other other physical things, and now they
expect to keep getting away with it, even though the physical bottom dropped
out and it's 100% digital without any of the exclusivity, and there is no
logic left.

 _" making copies can have economic consequences."_

Correct, since making copies can empower someone, regardless of his or her
economic background. You may call that communism but it has nothing to do with
economics. In fact, I _strongly_ value physical property _and_ ideas, but I'm
only willing to pay to _own_ the former since ownership doesn't apply to a
copy. You cannot own a sunrise. You can own a _photograph_ or a _painting_ of
a sunrise, but you cannot own the meaning, aka: the information. I own my
computer, but I do not own copies. Privacy _is_ the line in the sand, and
copyright exists beyond the need for privacy - at great expense. Why would I
feel obligated to pay for a copy - something I cannot own? If I can't
recognize any obligation to pay for copies - why are there laws enforcing
payment (monopolies)? It _is_ possible to wash off this muck and move forward.

To say it differently: copies are _not_ worthless... Copies are _priceless_. A
sunset is a thing of beauty. Charging for that is immoral. Charging for the
creation and upkeep of a lookout area may be necessary for a popular spot, but
the sunset itself is priceless and not the subject of ownership. Do
governments charge for pictures of the landscape on copyright grounds?
(Similarly, I would not privatize roads, even if that makes me a communist.)
Copyright doesn't enter into it. People need privacy, not copyright.

Back to Communism - since it always comes back to that. Communism is simply
the largest monopoly possible - a total government monopoly - therefore
capitalism and communism are identical in the extreme, unless lines are drawn
where necessary (and monopolies broken). (The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance... Or something.) Promoting copyright (a monopoly on thoughts) seems
to me to be advancing that end (going beyond a reasonable limit in order to
inflict a monopoly), and I seem to recall you saying you were against
communism (pardon my FUD).

 _" Are you saying people paying for content are stupid?"_

Why does it have to be about insults? People who know how to do a thing should
simply be free to, and not be held back for fictional reasons like copyright.
Copies do not cause harm or deprivation. 1+1=2. Nothing is lost besides the
malice associated with watching someone starve to death. Similarly, people who
have a surplus and the desire to give, should be free to. People who leave
tips are _not_ stupid.

 _" I know some from ex-communist countries like Romania, old USSR, some
current day states in India, etc. They all have a deep horror of communism.
There is a reason it fails hard."_

I'm _not promoting_ communism (you brought it up), I'm saying the very
comparison is a tangential emotional appeal, as it was with most of McCarthy's
accusations. (Also, FWIW, my friends tend to agree with me too.)

------
synctext
Hadopi needs to be familiar to the reader it seems.

Quite an opinion piece by Falkvinge. Hadopi is scheduled to be abolished,
correct?

~~~
yannovitch
Not exactly. More like phased out slowly.

