[siliconc0w]

The reality is more and more services will switch to the 'client-side-encrypted' model and then you're left trying to stomp out easily replicated and anonymously sharable lists of pointers to legally stored encrypted blobs. Good luck with that.

From an ideological point it seems hard to rationalize. We pretty much have an obligation to fix copyright law, build a digital Alexandria, and give it to the world. For Free. All art, movies, music, books, educational materials, everything. Free. We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend.

If we're going to fuck up the climate for later generations - I think we can manage to at least figure this out. It's pretty low hanging fruit from a technical perspective.

[repsilat]

> figure out another way to reward creators

It should be noted that the current system is working pretty damn well. More content is being created in just about every medium than ever before, and more people are consuming it. Maybe the rewards don't go as much to the artists as they should, but the money flows towards the sorts of media that people actually want to consume, which is something that other systems would find difficult to emulate well.

> most go without so the few left have reason to spend.

I'm not sure this is true. Market segmentation is very successful -- if you don't see a movie in the theatre, you might see it on DVD or Netflix, and if you can't afford that then you can see it on TV later on (and pay for it by watching advertisements.) Ditto music with albums, itunes/spotify/whatever and the radio.

> educational materials

The market hasn't done very well here in the past, I'll grant, but this one is definitely sorting itself out, too. Free textbooks are not popular yet, nor are sites like Coursera, EdX and Udacity, but they're growing.

[tomp]

> It should be noted that the current system is working pretty damn well. More content is being created in just about every medium than ever before, and more people are consuming it.

I don't think that either of these (more content created, and more content consumed) is because the system is working well, but despite the system being horrible. The Internet and digital media enabled many more producers, many more consumers, and it stole power from the intermediaries/distributors . Before the Internet, the distributors of media, you know, actually distributed the content. Nowadays, they only act as gatekeepers and (copyright-enabled) rent-seekers.

[jval]

I agree with this, but I think it is still an extremely difficult problem to solve. Most of the political problems we have are low hanging fruit from a technical perspective, the thing that renders them almost impossible is the fact that they run contrary to vested interests.

Part of the reason that Uber and Airbnb have succeeded where other content-based startups have failed is the fact that they are dealing with city-based, rather than federal regulations. As copyright is regulated federally, the only way to fix it is by first fixing the broken system of electoral funding that encourages politicians in DC to follow the money that flows out of the RIAA and similar cashed up lobbying bodies.

[pantaril]

>As copyright is regulated federally

It's even worse, copyright is regulated by international treaties[1]. Every time someone comes up with an idea to reform copyright, shorten the terms etc. it's immediately shot down by the argument that we are bound by those agreegments and cannot change anything ourselves.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internationa...

[narag]

I don't see it as a real problem. Copyright internationalization is mostly pushed by the USA. If USA itself decides to reform copyright, everybody else will jump on the bandwagon.

Of course, it's the money. It would be interesting seeing copyright rents by country.

Marijuana legalization is the very same story. Other countries wouldn't do it, fearing the wrath of USA. But now USA states are opening that mellon.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

Since when does the US care about treaty obligations?

[seanp2k2]

They won't have cash forever if no one is still buying their media.

[rbobby]

> We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces

If you do that first, then folks who's IP is to be given away free would more likely be on board with the idea.

[jMyles]

With rare (but large enough to be notable) exception, they already are.

As a musician, few things anger me more than when a politician claims to be clamping down on speech to defend my "property."

[repsilat]

That's admirable, but I'm not sure your viewpoint is so widespread. At least among authors, many view their work as property and would be outraged if anyone tried to "take it away from them".

I think most people now (artists or not) view one's copyrights as real property, and their eventual expiration as an antiquated idea.

[wmf]

Once you have the pointer (which includes the decryption key), can't you then send a normal DMCA takedown?

[siliconc0w]

The theoretical service uses distributed RAID6 -it detects the downed file - builds it back from distributed parity - and bans your client by hardware UUID. Your last known coordinates gathered from bluetooth/wifi/gps are broadcasted to local library users so they can ask you what's up.

[wmf]

Oh, I thought you were talking about Mega, not science fiction.

[siliconc0w]

Auto repairing distributed storage, client link tracking, and banning devices by hardware ID are actually all pretty common.

The bit about the users is a bit hyperbolic but could also easily be done. They could get rewarded with virtual avatar gear to protest on your lawn for messing with their library.

[jMyles]

There's nothing scifi about this solution. It's as mundane as tor or even, in some ways, bittorrent.

[nightcracker]

No, that would be arguing that someone's home is public space just because you found the key on the street.

[nemothekid]

>We can figure out another way to reward creators without creating artificial marketplaces that demand most go without so the few left have reason to spend.

I'd argue that we have already. Creating media is expensive, and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media you get rid of a segment who create media for the sake of media. The only people left are those wealthy enough to do so, and are no doubt looking to protect/expand their own profit centers.

The extreme view of this is that now Tarantino can only make his movies as long as he reminds everyone that "he gets the good stuff, Folgers® Brand Coffee, the best part of waking up."

[Xylakant]

> Creating media is expensive

Creating media has never been as cheap as today. My ex roommate has been playing in bands ever since I got to know him. First recordings were done on 6 track tape recorder an replicated to cassette. Then the first, big towers were capable of recording a handful of tracks with low quality. Now, all he needs to go and make solid recordings is a laptop and a semi-professional external sound card. The distribution costs drop to zero on the internet.

The equipment he uses to record is much cheaper than the room they rent for the band and the instruments.

People that create media for the sake of creating media can do so at an unprecedented scale. The issue is with those that want to make a living of being a media creator.

[easytiger]

I think people who are happy to acquiese to the music recording industry pleas for pity are failing to observe a simple and normal economic event wherein the value of what is being sold is not what it was 10 years. Industries change and then they die all the time. There is little novel about music anymore compared with the joy once brought in a less media entrenched time by the simple pleasures of buying and listening to an album, say 20 years ago.

Your point can roughly be paraphrased as the commoditization of media creation processes.

Schumpeter's gale:

""process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.""

[pantaril]

>and if you take away the ability for people to monetize media

He is talking about figuring out another way for creators to monetize their media without artificial restrictions on sharing/copying. He doesn't want to take away money from creators, just the copyright. And i couldn't agree more with this idea.

[nemothekid]

I worded my initial post incorrectly, but I'm not at odds with whats hes saying. What I'm trying to point out is that in many cases media has already begun to shift to this model. The model where there aren't any restrictions on sharing/copying is quickly becoming ad-sponsered content. And while it hasn't begun to effect music yet, its definitely in video (no one pays a cent to watch YouTube) and print (with advertisers astroturfing as legitimate articles on websites).

If its the case you agree with the idea, does that come at the cost where you open up a newspaper and 75% of the articles are actually written by corporations pretending to be journalists?

[e12e]

On the other hand -- I'd be happy to pay to avoid ads on youtube. It's one of the few streaming services I'd consider paying for (if I could) -- precisely because it's mostly user-curated.

[baddox]

Tarantino films make money at the box office, which has very little to do with copyright infringement. Sure, people can upload cams of film in the theater, but that's a very low quality product that hardly competes with the theater experience.

[seanp2k2]

But you know what's on my mind right now? It AIN'T the coffee in my kitchen,