Hacker News Reader

Comment by laumars | Hacker News Reader

Far more complicated and harms the little players far more than the current system.

Any law has to treat everyone equally otherwise it’s always going to be the Disney’s et al who win.

Every time the copyright law is discussed, little players and harm done to them is always brought in the conversation. In practice, however, the corporate media behemoths are the ones who benefit most from these laws.

It's 'think of the children!!' argument of the IP laws.

You’re missing the point if that’s you’re take away because I’m saying is overly complex rules are more likely to harm smaller players than they are the larger ones given larger organisations have the resources and motives to work exploit loopholes.

This isn’t a theoretical argument either. You see it all the time already (eg tax avoidance).

That's why the rules must be simple. There is no reason for tax rules to be complex, too.

> That's why the rules must be simple.

That was literally the point I made which you disagreed with!

You seem to be a bit obsessed with points. Ok, I'll elaborate.

1. The original message wasn't missing a point about complex rules harming small players. It was just stating that ANY shit done to IP laws is done on the pretence of helping the small players, but instead benefitting the big ones. This was a typical strawman argument on your part.

2. The point you say I disagreed with in the subsequent message is literally the point I agreed with.

Total points score: 2-0 in my favour. Better luck next year, have a nice 2022. ;)

> The original message wasn't missing a point about complex rules harming small players. It was just stating that ANY shit done to IP laws is done on the pretence of helping the small players, but instead benefitting the big ones. This was a typical strawman argument on your part.

Again, you’re making the same argument as I was while claiming I wasn’t making it.

> The point you say I disagreed with in the subsequent message is literally the point I agreed with.

Your comments (this one included) don’t do a particularly good job of expressing what you do and don’t agree with. Half your comments read like a rebuttal despite being an effective reiteration of former comments posted by those you’re replying to. The other half aren’t clear which comments you’re actually replying to (such as this post - it’s so vague as to the sequence of events you’re referring to that your comment is basically meaningless).

> You seem to be a bit obsessed with points.

> Total points score: 2-0 in my favour. Better luck next year

Are you 5 years old? That’s a pathetic way to handle a conversation.

It might help to think about the idea that the "little" players here are the public who, in aggregate has the largest stake in the game but who simultaneously has the lowest financial stakes and the least monetary incentives to lobby for their real interests.

I say that as someone who has produced a whole lot of content at the least-monitizable end of the system.

Disney is the one who is winning right now, both in terms of me "as a content creator" and me "as a member of the public".

> It might help to think about the idea that the "little" players here are the public

That was exactly who I was thinking about when I made my statement.

> Disney is the one who is winning right now, both in terms of me "as a content creator" and me "as a member of the public".

I agree. However the proposal made by the OP would only worsen the control that companies the size of Disney have while making it harder for individuals like ourselves to defend our own creative content.

So if you’re a contend creator (as I am too) then you really should oppose the suggestion made by the OP.

What you need to remember is that while copyright reform is needed - so badly needed - it doesn’t automatically make every possible suggestion better. In fact some of the suggestions that have been floated on HN are a lot worse than the status quo (and that’s saying something given how bad it already is).

But then I shouldn’t be surprised that a forum built around VC has members who think copyright can be “solved” simply by asking creators to throw more money at the problem…

i'd prefer it work like mario kart tbh, easier for the little co, harder for the big co

That’s nearly impossible to do though because the bigger the company the more resources they have to figure out loopholes and then to exploit them. And the more profitable exploiting those loopholes becomes thus the more tempting it is to act first then beg for forgiveness later.

It’s not even as if anti-competition laws have much effect these days. There’s a real culture in the US of acting dishonourably and then asking for forgiveness later. And more often than not, the punishment for breaking the law is significantly less than the profit earned from those unlawful acts. So they’re incentivised to be unlawful.

This is why you need clear rules that equivalent regardless of income so everyone is clear where the line is drawn; but penalties that are weighted so that rule breaking cannot be gamified.

I've had this (admittedly naive) idea for a while now: what if there were a way to declare fines for corporate offenses based on a percentage of the money earned from committing such an offense? This percentage could be greater than 100% to ensure it is never incentivized to break the law. The main issue is determining how much money a corporation made based on a decision. This would require statistics and analysts and the minimum possible fine should be the minimum possible fine currently imposed by law.

The whole shell corporation, off shore tax haven bullshit would probably make this infeasible but is there actually anything that can stop that? I don't have any good ideas, but I know corporations should not make money off breaking the law.

> what if there were a way to declare fines for corporate offenses based on a percentage of the money earned from committing such an offense?

That basically sounds like "actual damages", which is already the norm for calculating penalties in civil suits.

> This percentage could be greater than 100% to ensure it is never incentivized to break the law.

... and "actual damages" is by definition 100%, though you can get higher than 100% by adding on "statutory damages."

(You can see this as applied to copyright infringement in 17 USC §504: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504).

Easily gamed: the big company creates a new, tiny company that owns assets but is buried in debt and loopholes any such regulation.

Nah, a wholly owned subsidiary is not a magic shield against legal liability. Legislation with phrases like "beneficial ownership" can fix that stuff.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com