Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Hollywood Groups Advocate for More Internet Regulation (techdirt.com)
115 points by sqdbps 9 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 37 comments

Regardless of the spin of the article, it's important to note that the big entertainment companies are pushing for harsher punishments for internet companies to prevent the distribution of "unlawful" content.

I think this is interesting because while they sound like they are attacking Facebook, they are likely looking to go after their old enemies: YouTube and any video on the public internet.

In India all the entertainment companies have ganged up to choke Netflix and similar services by bringing them under Censor Board (A body that british created to make sure natives don't criticise the colonial masters)

India always had the certification board and Netflix has jumped in knowing full well of the ground realities. Apart from Amazon Prime which is a lot cheaper, I don’t think netflix is loosing anything. On the contrary, they have signed up a lot of content with the local actors.

Netflix is not losing much, the people are losing because of the colonial institution.

Facebook has substantial video component too, so it's a legitimate target. Back when I used it, I uploaded simultaneously to Facebook and to YouTube and my Facebook videos always got 2-3x views.

Sure, but Facebook views are (were?) inflated by including autoplaying videos when scrolling down the feed.

Yes, as long as they passed the 3 second mark.

For YouTube I believe it's 30 seconds.

Do Hollywood and the music industry really still have any problem with Youtube et al?

There are some snippets of popular shows that go beyond "fair use". But those are usually of low quality because they are trying to evade the filters.

Everything of actual value seems to be rather well protected.

And hasn't the music industry made their peace with the internet these days? Seriously: it seemed in the early 2000s, there was far more action by the MPAA and RIAA to shut down the internet as it is (was). Reading slashdot in that era, those two organisations showed up in headlines as often as Facebook has on HN in the last month, or Uber in 2017.

File sharing these days is but a fraction of its peak, what with Spotify and Netflix. Maybe they are still angling for better terms and other marginal concessions, but they are no longer the Dark Army fighting for life.

What's the spin of the article that you object to?

Me personally, I'm concerned that media creation companies are trying to add harder penalties for DCMA by disguising it as a privacy issue. In the end, the voters will get nothing or very little to improve their privacy but we will get tougher DCMA laws and penalties.

I'm not saying that I necessarily object, but I wanted to acknowledge that this article has a particular point of view in regards to this issue. Even if we put that to the side, however, I think the tactic that is being taken is interesting.

The copyright cartel will take any chance it gets to fundamentally reduce freedom. For every copyright extension and extra control it demands, it further violates the social contract. Their control over my speech is seemingly unlimited in duration and continues to expand its reach. I have no doubts their true motivation is "(3) prevent the distribution of unlawful and harmful content through their channels.". The cartel's only goal is the consolidation of your freedoms into an indefinite monopoly on their junk.

Long has this "IP" group sought to violate the social contract. When their control exceeds the social contract, then they no longer promote progress in the science and the arts. At which case I no longer respect their not-so-limited-time exclusive right to their writings and discoveries. May bittorrent, youtube, and the like continue to be the eye for an eye for their flagrant disregard of it.

A strategic hole in America's privacy advocacy front, obvious with the benefit of hindsight, is the degree to which we count on lobbying by technology companies. They have the users and they have the lobbying dollars, the thinking went, so why not leverage it? It made sense. But it afflicted on us a Dutch disease [1]. Every problem was more easily solved by pressuring Google than by organizing a community. The more we did it, the easier it became.

This was fine, while they were on our side and influential. But counting on a small collection of correlated elites is not a robust strategy. We need to turn privacy into a grassroots cause.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

This is normal. In http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514 it is appropriately called the exploitation of the large by the small. That book is short and a classic. It is worth reading by anyone who is interested in these matters.

The underlying reason is that most of the time, most are only motivated to put out significant effort for their own personal gain. Which means that in public goods, only if they believe that they will make the difference. Therefore public goods tend to fall into one of the following buckets:

1. A single individual or group supplies it out of self-interest and everyone else is a free rider. (This is the exploitation of the large by the small.) A good example is how most of the world lets the USA play global policeman and, despite complaints, contributes little to the effort.

2. A small group provides the good with complex negotiations where each tries to do as little as possible. A fun example is the infighting within OPEC as it tries to keep oil prices high.

3. A large group that is formed for some other purpose and is coercive in nature provides the good. Most government action falls into this category.

4. The public good fails to be provided. Examples are too numerous to bother listing.

I find these sorts of theories by US economists (that game theory is how humans think, all humans are lonely, distrustful, little 'value' hoarders) little more than telling introspections. They're approximately as scientific as evolutionary psychology.

In the context of privacy, how would 1, 2 or 3 explain the FSF, the EFF, or Wikipedia?

Does the selection explain things better than people wanting them to exist because they inherently believe that public goods are good, and they want to make a better world for everyone? (Even if such a belief is 'irrational' and thus game-theoretically impossible.)

They do not need to be explained under the parent's rubric, because that's describing the provision of public goods by large organizations. FSF, EFF, and Wikipedia are small organizations and operate differently. Which the linked book covers. Even in its precis, had you bothered to click through.

Thank you for the recommendation. The weakness in the privacy fight is not only the size of the corporate coalition, but it's correlation. They're all in the same industry. When one weakens, the others tend to as well.

What does Dr. Olson recommend in terms of broadening coalitions?

The weakness in the privacy fight is not only the size of the corporate coalition, but it's correlation.

The weakness that you identify above is that individual citizens aren't jumping into it. We are willing to sit back and let large companies to deal with it.

Anyways if you want to create results, find a reason for people to be part of the your organization that is not tied to the goal, and then use the organization for the goal.

As a concrete example he used AAA, which people belong to because they want various services that AAA offers, and then can use their money and position to advocate for things like better roads.

Why is your link for Dutch disease an email address?

Probably they intended to paste an URL but they didn't copy the URL to their clipboard first so they ended up pasting an e-mail address that they had there since before.

Whoops! Thanks for the heads up.

I think something to note in parallel to this article is that today $FB is up 10%, and over the past month as almost completely recouped it's recent "privacy-related" drop. From a year ago Facebook indicated it was still gaining new users (+13% DAU), increased headcount by +50% and has over 2 BILLION monthly users worldwide...

So they will "Kick Facebook While Down"? Any company in the world would enjoy being "down" like Facebook is.

This is a great example of why media companies fear tech companies. The media has been engaged in outright war against FB. The end result? Nothing.

People don’t let media companies tell them what to believe anymore, they do as they want and they want tech. The media is no longer the gatekeeper of public opinion and you can see their fear in every anti-tech push they make.

> The media is no longer the gatekeeper of public opinion

i feel like its a new media now... but still a media driven by advertising bux

This is simply another case of a group pushing for their evil to be classified as good and the good to be classified as evil. Their support of increasing penalties for what they claim is "theft" when they are supporters of actual theft is quite funny is a sad, sad way.

This is a case of them wanting their "rights" with no intention of ever carrying out their responsibilities.

I actively teach the young people that I have relationship with (including my children, grandchildren, nephews, nieces, etc) that you have one right only, the rest is privilege and responsibility. That one right is to choose your course of action and there are consequences (good and bad) with every choice you make, but that is your right. Everything else that is called a right is a privilege and it comes with attendant responsibilities.

These kinds of groups make choices but have no desire to face the consequences of their action, they want to place on others those consequences.

Hollywood needs its own regulation

Oh, that's a great idea. I'll start:

- 1 movie remake per year, max

- Sequels stop once you need more than 1 (human) hand to count them

- Cease and desist production on any more 'super hero' movies

Movies should be an artistic expression, not a mathematically-optimal plot to maximize repeat viewership wrapped in as many special effects as they can pack into 90 minutes.

We've reached "peak special effects" - raytracing has been used in movies for decades, and we're very close to having realtime raytracing in videogames.

> Movies should be an artistic expression, not a mathematically-optimal plot to maximize repeat viewership wrapped in as many special effects as they can pack into 90 minutes.

Why? I want to be entertained and who the hell are you to say I can't get what I want (and millions of others want it too).

I don't have any problem you getting to watch some art film I have zero interest in.

Meanwhile they cut deals that ensure very good shows, like "The Expanse", get pirated to hell because people won't wait for stupid regional delays.

Hell, I'll pirate a show to avoid waiting until the next day to watch it on Amazon. I still buy it, but why the hell should I have to wait.

I'm not even super anti-DRM. It's dumb, but if I can watch the show I just don't care. Just let me pay you money to watch content.

Easiest thing in the world and they fuck it up constantly.

> I'm not even super anti-DRM. It's dumb, but if I can watch the show I just don't care. Just let me pay you money to watch content.

That's one of our biggest problems: no one cares about DRM until it directly hinders them.

Most people don't care about watching Netflix in Linux, but the rest of us have to deal with being arbitrarily constrained to 720p.

Most people don't mind their favorite video game needing to ask the internet for permission to load, or frequent large forced updates, but that leaves people with slow or limited internet in a frustrating situation.

Our society's problem is apathy: so long as copyright holders provide the bare minimum, they can avoid any serious action, because there simply aren't enough people willing to act against copyright abuse.

meh, pick your battles.

This article reads like it's written by an outraged 14-year old. It's point may be true, but I'm just not going to believe s/o who calls people's reservations about the Facebook business model an "exaggerated moral panic".

Copyright is one of those issues where I haven’t found a conclusive answer yet. The for argument is that the content makers need be paid. The against argument is that this hinders knowledge sharing and acts as a threat to humans’ collaboration and there should be a limit to how much profit the content makers can make. Which one is wrong? And how do you find a middle ground? Piracy and torrents immediately start coming to my mind.

Piracy is not anywhere near as harmful as it is made it to be.

The copyright holder does not lose anything to piracy.

We need to lose the propaganda-based rhetoric, and go back to the real descriptive term for copyright: Monopoly.

Good. I've changed my mind. Let them fight it out, The Valley has long since abandoned the moral high-ground over Hollywood's attempts to control the internet. If Hollywood can kick them around a bit: great, they deserve it.

Facebook created a consolidation of control, so that they could use their newfound power to exercise their will over other people. They put a target on their own back, and on the backs of every last person running online systems in general.

That's the cost of creating control levers. You alone don't get to set them because nobody is ever - or has ever been - at the top of every power hierarchy simultaneously.

The problem was never that Hollywood wanted to use the government to tell me what I could and couldn't do. The problem was that they wanted to tell me what I could and coudn't do.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact