[HN Gopher] Cory Doctorow: IP (2020) ___________________________________________________________________ Cory Doctorow: IP (2020) Author : akkartik Score : 130 points Date : 2021-01-30 17:35 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (locusmag.com) (TXT) w3m dump (locusmag.com) | visarga wrote: | The author makes a point about interoperability, and I wholly | agree. But it must be balanced with diversity, we don't care just | about being interoperable, we want a thousand flowers to bloom. | jbotz wrote: | Cory nails it. Or at least part of it. | | I've long had a nagging feeling that there was a deep connection | between the current state of our "post truth" society and the | continuously widening scope of "IP" (digital monopoly) | protections. Cory disentangles some of those connections and | shows some of the ways IP has become a tool for restricting | freedoms. But there's more: I think that those same mechanics are | narrowing the overton window and putting all thinking that's | outside on the same level... and we end up in a world where the | ordinary person can't distinguish between the credibility of un- | approved ideas. | breck wrote: | Truth is bad business. | | Truth lasts for years, centuries even. | | You need to bury truth, so you can keep selling people a stream | of "novel" information. Truth doesn't get you monopoly profits, | only novelty. Rearrange the truth every couple decades into | crappier versions and profit. | | Incentives matter. | | #ImaginaryProperty is the worst. #IntellectualFreedom YOLO!!! | stonecraftwolf wrote: | "IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the | conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers." | | Doctorow never uses this word, but the dynamic he describes -- | where tech companies, rather than try to keep customers by | offering good products, prefer to keep customers by making it | impossible for them to leave -- is fundamentally abusive. | | The entire essay is a detailed explanation of the ways that tech | companies exploit and abuse their customers and society as a | whole, but he never uses those words. | | I'm in agreement -- they are abusive; they are exploitive; they | are preying upon society and need to be regulated -- but it's odd | that he doesn't use the words. | onethought wrote: | So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, do | you find books abusive as well? | | I don't quite buy the leap that "software companies being | exploitative" is at all related to "protecting IP through the | use of copyright". Cory does not link the two successfully in | my mind. | NobodyNada wrote: | > Books do the same thing | | Huh? If I have a book, I can lend it to a friend, sell it on | eBay, or even put it in a library where thousands of people | can read it for free. If I "own" a book on a Kindle, I can do | none of those things -- and if our corporate overlords decide | they don't want me to read that book anymore, then they can | remotely remove it from my device, even if I paid for it [0]. | The abuse is that DRM is being weaponized to criminalize fair | use and other consumer rights that copyright law otherwise | would not give corporations authority over -- and because of | DMCA 1201, it is illegal to work around DRM even for fair-use | purposes. | | In fact, DRM does next to _nothing_ to prevent piracy, as | evidenced by the thriving piracy "industry" today. Every DRM | system can eventually be bypassed, somehow -- there has to be | _some_ way to decrypt the content, otherwise I wouldn 't be | able to watch it. It's akin to putting up a "no stealing" | sign outside my house -- sure, it means that thieves are | technically trespassing now -- but they were already breaking | the law to begin with and no flimsy little sign is going to | stop them. It could be argued that DRM only makes piracy | _more_ enticing, because consumers can use pirated content in | completely normal, fair-use ways that are blocked by DRM. | | As Doctorow explains in the article, DRM was never about | protecting copyright, it's about protecting monopolies. DRM | means I can only watch a movie with an approved web browser | on an approved operating system on an approved computer using | an approved cable to connect to an approved monitor, and that | I can only repair a tractor at an approved tractor | dealership. | | [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/ | 18am... | onethought wrote: | In your book example... I don't think you can (legally) | redistribute your book. It's just publishers don't really | care if you do, because cost of enforcement is too high. | That's why they like kindles. | | Software used to be like this too, back when it was | distributed as a physical thing (disks). | | DRM was about protecting copyright, your book/kindle | example was a perfect illustrator of that. But I agree, it | has been weaponised and misused. | namibj wrote: | You can't distribute copies of the book (outside of | limited exceptions). First Sale doctrine says you can | pretty much do whatever you want with the physical item. | onethought wrote: | Huh, I wasn't familiar with that (again another US nuance | to Copyright). This isn't globally accepted. | fabianhjr wrote: | It is globally accepted. There are many community | libraries throughout the world that consist on a small | shelf on a sidewalk where people leave books for others | and take the ones they are interested in. | | https://littlefreelibrary.org/ | onethought wrote: | No it isn't. As law. It might be accepted as practice. | | They are different. | boomboomsubban wrote: | Examples of where it is not? | dmurray wrote: | And plenty of used bookstores, who do the same thing | commercially and generally don't even get nasty letters | from publishers. | a1369209993 wrote: | > So he is referring to copyright. Books do the same thing, | do you find books abusive as well? | | If by "books" you mean "copyright on books, as enforced | against people rather than corporations[0]", then yes, yes | 'they' are. | | 0: Nitpick: legal action against a corporation for printing | something by request from a particular customer is legal | action against that customer, the same as if you'd prosecuted | 15'000$ that you stole from their car for being drug money. | stonecraftwolf wrote: | If you read the essay in full, you'd see that he | distinguishes between copyright laws meant to encourage | authorship and what is currently meant under the "IP | umbrella," which is more about protecting monopoly power. | onethought wrote: | Yes, he does conflate a bunch of behaviour into IP. But | that's just his conflation. | | Monopolistic practices exist with or without IP laws, terms | of service, etc. | | Take a look at some other industries: energy companies have | protected fossil fuel exploitation and stifled research and | adoption of nuclear and green alternatives. | | Finance industry have maintained monopoly and avoided | regulation despite there being obvious harm to their | practice. | | These behaviours are related to capitalism... not | intellectual property. | stonecraftwolf wrote: | It really seems you haven't read the essay. He does not | conflate them; he distinguishes between them, at length. | I encourage you to read it. | bscphil wrote: | If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where | anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct | of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is | "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument | is very easily extended, because that's exactly what _all_ | property does. | | Intellectual property is the right to say how others are | allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs to you. Ordinary | property is the right to say how others are allowed to use a | physical thing that belongs to you. It's effectively the same | concept, just extended. | | Of course, it doesn't immediately follow from _either_ physical | property or intellectual property that it will be abused in the | way Doctorow describes (by "keeping customers by making it | impossible for them to leave"), but it certainly could be. For | example, suppose a relatively small number of individuals or | companies owned most of the land, and most of the industrial | machinery, and all the investment capital - then everyone else | would have to go work for them, and produce whatever the | property owners wanted to produce, instead of what they wanted | to make for themselves. Someone might describe such a dynamic | as fundamentally abusive in exactly the same way that | intellectual property is. | breck wrote: | If you believe that #ImaginaryProperty makes any sense at all | I've got some "Dry Water" to sell you. | fabianhjr wrote: | > Of course, it doesn't immediately follow from either | physical property or intellectual property that it will be | abused in the way Doctorow describes (by "keeping customers | by making it impossible for them to leave"), but it certainly | could be. For example, suppose a relatively small number of | individuals or companies owned most of the land, and most of | the industrial machinery, and all the investment capital - | then everyone else would have to go work for them, and | produce whatever the property owners wanted to produce, | instead of what they wanted to make for themselves. Someone | might describe such a dynamic as fundamentally abusive in | exactly the same way that intellectual property is. | | I completely agree it can be extended in that way and it has | been done so in the past; There are even countries that have | political parties that generally agree with such a statement | and work towards (albeit imperfectly) to limit or abolish | such monopolies of capital. | | (The US on the other hand left their anti-trust laws to rust | on the side and let monopolistic entities gain power such as | Amazon and Facebook; here is a report on how Amazon has been | using sale and review data to launch AmazonBasics products | undercutting other brands: | https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify- | wayf... on the "Amazon's Version" section) | pdonis wrote: | _> It 's effectively the same concept, just extended._ | | No, it isn't, because ordinary physical property can't be | copied the way digital "property" can be. And the whole | scheme of property rights with regard to ordinary physical | property only makes sense _because_ ordinary physical | property can 't be copied. If I steal your car, you are | deprived of the car; that's why it's a crime for me to do it. | But if I make a digital copy of some computer file you have, | I'm not depriving you of it; you still have your copy and can | still use it exactly as you did before. So why should it be a | crime for me to make the copy? | | The corporations that are pushing "intellectual property" | rights over digital "property" would _like_ it to be a crime, | of course, but that doesn 't mean we, the people, should | agree. | stonecraftwolf wrote: | No. The ability to abuse comes specifically from power | imbalances, and that's what we need to take into account when | designing policy. This is something that can't be explicitly | enumerated in all cases, but that doesn't mean it can't be | addressed. We do have anti-trust law for a reason (even if it | hasn't been enforced). | zepto wrote: | What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of | tech companies? | b0rsuk wrote: | Maybe he counts on the reader to connect the dots? | ylkdhruei wrote: | am I only one who find it diffucult to get what IP referred? | | it is not about internet protocol it is intellectual property ! | wuh | akkartik wrote: | _" Forty years ago, we had cake and asked for icing on top of it. | Today, all we have left is the icing, and we've forgotten that | the cake was ever there. If code isn't licensed as "free," you'd | best leave it alone."_ | naringas wrote: | what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all | like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus | intellectual property leads the way to mind property. | | how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not | mine? | onethought wrote: | Copyright is concerned with the (specific) expression of | ideas... by definition if it is in your mind it's unexpressed. | So copyright cannot apply. | | I don't quite follow what you're worried about... | naringas wrote: | My point is not about copyright but about "Intellectual | Property" | onethought wrote: | But ALL IP laws are concerned with expression. | | Even patents which protect an idea, cannot be enforced | unless there is a concrete expression of that idea. | rhn_mk1 wrote: | Th point of knowledge is being able to make use of it - | express it. | | If knowlege cannot be legally expressed, it's useless and not | really yours. | nfoz wrote: | Agreed. For example, a device which augments my memory by | allowing me to replay and record my own experiences, would | invariably violate copyright. Which is offensive to me. | kmeisthax wrote: | What you're talking about isn't a problem until and unless | whole-brain emulation becomes a thing. You cannot assert | copyright over a human brain because you cannot copy a human | brain; and insamuch that brain is capable of copying other | works, that's already covered by standard copyright law. It | would be a good plot for a 2000s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk | book (P2Ppunk?) but I suspect the Supreme Court would rule that | the 14th Amendment overrides copyright interest in human brains | were that to become a problem. | | (If you wanted a 2010s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk sequel book | you'd have some far-right militia group arguing for bringing | back slavery to protect author's rights or something. Call it | Twitterpunk.) | naringas wrote: | I disagree, what you describe is the extreme version of what | I am worried about. | | I'm not worried that about an external entity owning my | entire mind. I'm worried about a society in which | institutions and corporations have ownership over some parts | of what I know. | | And this is already happening, so many engineers and | academics have signed NDAs, essentially giving up ownership | (the ability to determine how to use) of certain information | they have learned, in some cases even their own original | ideas. | bookofjoe wrote: | You might enjoy "Replicas," -- https://youtu.be/ze_ANsckvS0 | -- a 2018 sci-fi thriller starring Keanu Reeves, which | centers on whole-brain emulation. No spoiler review here! | bencollier49 wrote: | I disagree with this - if I've memorised a tune, I'm not | allowed to replay it without paying a fee. But the line | between biological and physical memory seems arbitrary to me, | and this will become increasingly so. | | We can already read basic images from a brain using AI to | reconstruct the image[1]. If that device shows an image which | is copyrighted, who is liable, the person with the scanner, | or the brain that was scanned? | | How about if I create a device which helps people who are | physically disabled - or locked in - to communicate by | projecting sounds from their brains - but not at will? If the | person thinks about a tune ("Happy Birthday"), have they | "performed" it? | | What happens if they think something which is considered | enough to have you banned from popular platforms? What about | if the technology is forced to remove their services because | the thoughts you're creating are unacceptable? | | These things don't seem at all unlikely within the next 10-20 | years. | | 1. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/mind-reading- | algorit... | onethought wrote: | It's also worth pointing out that different countries have | nuanced interpretations and applications of Copyright Law. The US | is only one. For instance "Fair Use" is a US inspired thing that | other countries don't have. Rather than having a "defence" (when | prosecuted) some countries actually give permission to copy | things (as a right, not a defence) | [deleted] | sircastor wrote: | Yes, but we aggressively export the unbalanced rights all over | the world via trade agreements. | kmeisthax wrote: | Software copyright was an absolute mistake that fundamentally | misunderstood the delicate balances between copyright owners, the | market for creative works, and the public at large. I have no | faith in Congress to fix it. | II2II wrote: | Keep in mind that copyright also enables free software. Without | it, there would be no incentive to share source code since | there would be no mechanism to stipulate that modified versions | must be shared. That would significantly diminish the role of | collaboration and significantly increase the role of | opportunism. It is also worth noting that copyright increases | the financial incentive to progress the state of the art. | | The real problem with the current IP regime is its use to | impose restrictions that go beyond reproduction. | sounds wrote: | Copyleft is generally regarded as a clever "fix" because of | the brokenness of software copyright. Cory Doctorow even | addresses this at the beginning of this article. He mentions | that the GPL came out around the same time software copyright | was first implemented. He distinguishes between copyleft (the | "icing") and interoperability (the "cake") to point out how | the new software copyrights took away interoperability. By | the end of the article, he suggests we have no more cake and | the icing may vanish soon. | b0rsuk wrote: | I get an unpleasant feeling that Free Software was never really | popular. It was somewhat popular early on, because it formalised | the way things were done at the time. This is why it received | relatively little friction. So it wasn't really _accepted_. It | was _ignored_. | lazulicurio wrote: | A very good article. A section that really spoke to me: | | > Prior to the rise of the "intellectual property" as an umbrella | term, the different legal regimes it refers to were customarily | referred to by their individual names. When you were talking | about patents, you said "patents," and when you were talking | about copyrights, you said "copyrights." Bunching together | copyrights and trademarks and patents and other rules wasn't | particularly useful, since these are all very different legal | regimes. On those rare instances in which all of these laws were | grouped together, the usual term for them was "creator's | monopolies" or "author's monopolies." | | > The anti-IP argument leans into the differences between the | underlying rationale for each of these rules: | | > * US copyrights exist to "promote the useful arts and sciences" | (as set out in the US Constitution); that is, to provide an | incentive to the creation of new works of art: copyright should | offer enough protection to create these incentives, but no more. | Copyright does not extend to "ideas" and only protects | "expressions of ideas"; | | > * Patents exist as incentive for inventors to reveal the | workings of their inventions; to receive a patent, you must | provide the patent office with a functional description of your | invention, which is then published. Even though others may not | copy your invention during the patent period, they can study your | patent filings and use them to figure out how to do the same | thing in different ways, or how to make an interoperable add-on | to your invention; | | > * Trademarks exist as consumer protection: trademarks empower | manufacturers to punish rivals who misleadingly market competing | products or services that are like to cause confusion among their | customers. It's not about giving Coca-Cola the exclusive right to | use the work "Coke" - it's about deputizing Coca-Cola to punish | crooks who trick Coke drinkers into buying knockoffs. Coke's | trademark rights don't cover non-deceptive, non-confusing uses of | its marks, even if these users harm Coca-Cola, because these do | not harm Coke drinkers. | | > Seen in this light, "intellectual property" is an incoherent | category: when you assert that your work has "intellectual | property" protection, do you mean that you can sue rivals to | protect your customers from deception; or that the government | will block rivals if you disclose the inner workings of your | machines; or that you have been given just enough (but no more) | incentive to publish your expressions of your ideas, with the | understanding that the ideas themselves are fair game? | | > When you look at how "IP" is used by firms, a very precise - | albeit colloquial - meaning emerges: | | > "IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the | conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers." | breck wrote: | Down with #ImaginaryProperty. Up with #IntellectualFreedom. | | YOLO! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-30 23:00 UTC)