Open-RethinkDB meeting notes #4 - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cTqKt1_EBanGoVmYyahdLyDD8dhCa0SdD0CbjbP67f8 <comment><USER2> News: "Our initial plan was to acquire the intellectual property left over from the RethinkDB company, enabling us to relicense the code and use the name RethinkDB. After aggressively pursuing this plan since the company shut down in September, little progress has been made." Dang.

<comment><USER3> I wonder what the offer amount is/was.

<comment><USER4> I don't think an offer amount was made. As far as I can tell there is no significant money or even organization in the group of people that are doing their best to manage the project. They're still looking for a way to formalize. I would read this as that stakeholders have not been eager to donate the RethinkDB IP to a foundation, so perhaps there either are commercial parties interested in the IP, or the stakeholders think there might be.

This is all conjecture though, unfortunately besides these meeting notes there is no record of interactions with the RethinkDB stakeholders.

<comment><USER3> So you've got this thing that's of non-zero value. Because the company shut down, and didn't get acquired, it's probably still owned by a largish number of folks. Getting the right approval to sell it for a song would seem tricky without majority shareholders being really into the idea.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, it's hard. I worked on a video game that was canceled 16 years ago, and only recently released in unfinished form. It was very difficult to get consensus among the team to allow a release, and ultimately we had to settle on a non-free license (CC non-commercial. better than nothing).

We had some commercial offers, but they were low enough that it made it seem like we could seek a better offer, even though no such better offers really exist. I can easily see the same thing happening with RethinkDB:

Buyer: I'll give $10K for all of RethinkDB's IP.

Owners: LOL, no thanks. You know how much we spent building this?

Buyer: I'll give you $100K.

Owners: Ehh starting to turn into real money, maybe we'll hold out for a bigger number?

Buyer: I'll give you $1M!

Owners: Now we're talking! But, no. Surely if you'll offer this much, there's someone to beat it. Let's go looking.

I don't see a way out...

Fortunately, they picked a FOSS license. As much as people like to gripe on the AGPL, we have code we can freely modify and use, even commercially. That's pretty awesome, and more than I can say about my much less valuable video game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This project is just too awesome to let die, I hope it continues development for years to come.

</comment><comment><USER7> The investors should get an automatic tax benefit for releasing the IP into the public domain. There are great companies that you've never heard of that die every day and nothing ever happens to their IP. It's a massive economic waste.

<comment><USER8> They already get a tax benefit when they write the investment off...

<comment><USER7> That doesn't release the IP into the public domain. The issue is that it's in a zombie state that creates liability / uncertainty for anyone that wants to use it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great to see RethinkDB as a project is pushing forward. My concern is about product and code quality with the core founders and engineers leaving for Stripe. I'm sure the open source contributors are great, but do we really think they will do as fantastic of a job as coffeemug, mglukhovsky, and danielmewes? Especially now, since the financial motivations are essentially removed.

<comment><USER10> I can confidently say that there is much more than $$ driving the individuals that made this wonderful product. (I did not work at RethinkDB).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very happy to see progress being made. There is nothing comparable to RethinkDB changefeeds out there.

</comment><comment><USER12> Oh wow, 2.4 is out next week? I thought we're stuck with 2.3 for a long time. Top 1 daily Hacker News submission incoming.

</comment><comment><USER13> Awrsome!

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm worried about this being posted on Google Docs. What happens when Google Docs gets shut down or migrated into some sort of other service and this document is not migrated? This sort of thing should be on a mailing list, methinks.

<comment><USER15> You mean because you think that a service with 3 million paying organizations and the core part of Google's strategy to get greater adoption in enterprise and schools is going to disappear?

<comment><USER14> It's possible, but what I'm actually thinking about is more along the lines of lock-in. For instance, Writely, which was the service Google bought to make it into Google Docs, had a migration period where, before you opened a document in Google Docs, you had to convert it to the new format. It's a form of bit rot. Over time, stuff on proprietary services become less and less useful.

I tried archiving this Open-RethinkDB meeting notes document using archive.is (a very common archiving service) and you can see the output is broken so you can't archive it: [https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%...](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1cTqKt1_EBanGoVmYyahdLyDD8dhCa0SdD0CbjbP67f8%2Fedit)

Ask: How will we read this in 10 years?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What printed IT magazines do you read? (if any). - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> None, but I've found myself starting to follow individual IT writers as opposed to publications, setting up Google Alerts and RSS feeds to have my own "fantasy" league of great writers with minimum cruft and no sneaky advertorial.

<comment><USER3> Care to share who's in the fantasy league? I've got my own, but it's quite small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not exactly an IT magazine, but I subscribe to Inc which has some nice articles on technology and enterpreneurship and I like it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Do any printed IT magazines still exist?</comment>


The end of SEO, powered by Google - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.org/2008/05/26/powered-by-google/

<comment><USER2> White hat SEO is the practice of making sure sites are well structured and well covered by related sites.

Like making sure a book has a contents, index and the pages in the right order, a title that is going to look attractive, and a description that will make readers want to know more.

That part will never change no matter what search engines do, because people always make sites that aren't put together properly.

Good SEO's also look at converting the visitors that originate from search engines, nobody is going to change that either.

I think this article means to say 'The end of the recent black hat techniques in SEO' - as we all know, those breaking the rules always find new ways.

<comment><AUTHOR> I will give you a page that breaks every SEO rule in the book but that is ranked very high for one of the most important search terms currently on the collective worlds mind.

The search term is "global dimming" and the result I am referring to which absolutely has ZERO SEO, is this:

<http://www.documentary-film.net/search/sample.php>

[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+dimming&...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+dimming&start=10&sa=N)

It is now up to others to disprove my claims, that: 1) General White hat SEO is no longer relevant 2) That you cannot game Google with any form of SEO on a new domain.

Enjoy the doc btw.

<comment><USER2> From first look, that term has very little competition and so would not be difficult to rank for.

You have links to the site (4005 of them) [http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch;_ylt=ArrNxOma...](http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/advsearch;_ylt=ArrNxOmaiQ_eTyCSBMMVxkval8kF?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.documentary- film.net&bwm=i&bwmf=a&bwms=p)

And the page has the main keyword in the title.

You rank 3rd on the page.

That doesn't look anything out of the ordinary for SEO :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nothing out of the ordinary!

Not a single word on that page! No meta tags, no text, nothing but a 2 word title. That is out of the ordinary.

If you think that is an easy term to rank for, your mistaken, the next result down is PBS.

<comment><USER2> There's only 220,000 competition. The main factors (yes before, and after all these latest updates) are title tag, and links - both of which you have.

Since its a low competition keyword, you don't need _everything_ to rank. But saying that, you have 4000~ incoming links, which is pretty high.

<comment><AUTHOR> 220K competition sure sounds like a lot to me.

So you agree then that white hat SEO, I.e. meta tags, H1 text, page text, page layout, content on the page, keyword density, validation, is all absolutely pointless. My point entirely!

<comment><USER2> Most keywords that actually generate traffic have much more results returned, usually 1 million plus, 5 million is pretty normal.

Keywords that generate traffic can also be marked by the amount of PPC ads that appear for the keyword, people paying money don't go after stuff that doesn't generate clicks, or even impressions.

What you've listed there as white hat SEO is just the on-site SEO side of it.

Are you the author of the article? or just submitted it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _This new algorithm changes everything_

Which new algorithm? The article doesn't say. In fact, it doesn't say much of anything, offering little more than unsubstantiated assertions. It might be right, be we have no way to tell.

<comment><AUTHOR> See substantiated claims, in my other response.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hmm...using search dominance to make sure they get all of the paid link business. Sounds similar to using desktop OS dominance to corner the browser business. It smells.

<comment><USER5> I agree 110% and not because Google penalizes new domains, but because Google will go to extreme and unfair measures to protect their (soon to be) monopoly in the paid advertising market.

Google whacks paid links because it competes with AdWords. Doesn't get much more complex than that. If you own a company that makes it's money by selling links or providing webmaster an alternative to AdSense/AdWords, prepare to be attacked directly by the Goog.

The MS-like backlash will happen with Google, just give it time.

<comment><USER6> Google should whack paid links, they're less relevant than natural links; this is a good thing and makes the search results more relevant. Selling links is gaming the system. Paid links spoil the relevance of search results.

<comment><USER5> Selling links only spoils relevance because that's what Google bases their rank algorithm on. This is a flaw in Google's logic. Google created the market (both the good side and the bad), and now they want to control it too. Without Google's ranking math there would still be paid links. It shouldn't be 'our' problem that Google's logic if flawed, they should engineer a new solution.

If we take your and Google's word on this, that paid links ruin relevance, it just displaces where the money and time is spent. If direct paid links are penalized, it shifts the power and influence to other parties/locations (and all the paid link money directly into Google's pockets)

<comment><USER6> Do you remember before Google? Do you remember how bad search engines sucked and how irrelevant the results were? Google was smart enough to see that when lot's of pages link to a site, that site must be considered relevant by a lot of people.

Ranking results by inbound links was the breakthrough that made search actually work. Paid links are bad, they allow people with money to game the system and make irrelevant content show up in the search results. Unless you're a spammer or an SEO, Google is doing the right thing for the user. It is the user after all, they're trying to serve, not middle men trying to arbitrage the system. Ideally, they figure out a way to make spamming and SEO completely irrelevant, that industry needs to die.

You act as if you have some _right_ to show up in their search results, guess what, YOU DON'T. It is Google's search engine, they have every right to do with it as they please, including exclude anyone they wish.

Google's logic isn't flawed, yours is. Google's search results are not a free market, they have every right to game their own system to make them money and there's nothing unfair about it. You have no rights and no expectation of rights about how they index your site with _their_ search engine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Funny article coming from a website which has ads without Google's 'required' nofollow tag.

<comment><USER7> Ddn't know that was 'required'. Can you tell me more? If you are correct I will change the code...

<comment><USER2> I think it was on Matt Cutts blog that he mentioned any links to advertising should have a nofollow, to protect your site from being seen to "sell links", which would then result in a penalty in the form of not being able to pass page rank, and having your page rank reduced.</comment></comment></comment>


Never ever run directly against Node.js in production. Maybe - <AUTHOR> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/you-should-never-ever-run-directly-against-node-js-in-production-maybe-7fdfaed51ec6/ <comment><USER2> Pretty good article. Monit is another nice utility to keep applications and services monitored and running on *nix. It has some cool features, and some may find it easier than systemd.</comment>


If the Boss Is Young and Male, Watch Out - <AUTHOR> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/if-the-boss-is-young-and-male-watch-out/

<comment><USER2> If the boss is competing with the staff, it's a recipe for disaster. The boss is SUPPOSED to use the staff to accomplish more than s/he can do on their own, protecting those doing the work from the "corporate BS". It's a sign of maturity (bad word) or self-confidence (better word?) when the boss lets go the competitiveness and starts doing their job.</comment>


Nim – fast, statically typed, garbage collected systems programming language - <AUTHOR> https://nim-lang.org/ <comment><USER2> Nim is a really good language with the ease of use of Python and the speed of C, Rust, Go with the benefit of creating single executable binary that makes it easy to deploy.

But, I only use it for toy apps and things I don't particularly care about because it is still not 1.0 indicating the language core is not settled yet. May be others are more comfortable with it than I am.</comment>


Word nerds may be faster at learning to code than math whizzes - <AUTHOR> https://www.futurity.org/learning-to-program-code-math-language-2295992/ <comment><USER2> There's still a huge bias against word nerds. I have an mfa in writing despite 25 years in software development I still get accused of being an imposter for not having some ancient CS degree from the early 90s.</comment>


Fiat will effectively fund Tesla's German factory - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-09/fiat-will-effectively-fund-tesla-s-german-factory-baird-says <comment><USER2> "Fiat Chrysler is going to launch a new version of its Fiat 500 battery- powered vehicle in Europe this year, along with plug-in hybrid versions of its Jeep Compass, Renegade and Wrangler models. That, combined with the Tesla credits, should make the company compliant with Europe's emissions rules, CEO Mike Manley told analysts in July.

While Fiat Chrysler would otherwise struggle to meet new carbon-dioxide emissions standards in Europe, the so-called open-pool option available in the European Union allows automakers to group their fleets together to meet targets." Fiat is paying Tesla for emission credits to meet EU regulations.

<comment><USER3> Tesla is a compliance car manufacturer for-hire. If they were serious about the planet (and their own mission statement) they would cease this dirty practice.

<comment><USER4> Why? Sounds like the law is working as intended: subsidizing electric car with ICE car profits

<comment><USER3> It undoes all the good from buying their cars. For every Tesla I buy, someone else gets to pollute more. It's legal, but it's immoral.

<comment><USER5> It's the opposite. For every Fiat that is purchased, Teslas become cheaper. Purchasing a Tesla does not make a Fiat cheaper.

<comment><USER3> My interest is greenhouse gas emissions, not in wealth transfer shell games.

If Tesla did not sell the right to pollute to the highest bidder, produced Teslas would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But they do, so every Tesla sold results in a mirror SUV created. Buying a Tesla does not help with climate change. I might as well buy the SUV and let some sucker on the other side of the trade deal with the premium prices, charging hassle, and range anxiety that comes with EV ownership.

What good is a marginally cheaper Tesla if, at the end of day, it doesn't reduce pollution one bit?

<comment><USER5> If Tesla did not sell the right to pollute to the highest bidder, it wouldn't be able to fund itself. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how carbon permit equivalent systems work. Each year, the number of permits decreases and the price of polluting goes up. If you immediately drop the number of permits to zero, the production infrastructure won't be in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://web.archive.org/web/20200110194339/https://www.bloom...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200110194339/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-09/fiat- will-effectively-fund-tesla-s-german-factory-baird-says)

</comment><comment><USER7> One thing that pretty much everyone underestimated here is exactly how good Musk is at finding other people to pay for stuff.

The loans from the Chinese govt...insane...he found literally the only people on earth (perhaps aside from German bankers, although they have lost too much money to carry on for now) that will light fire to huge stacks of cash with no hesitation.

Fiat are shrewd but he clearly had them up against a wall here. Genius.

I would still much rather take my money down to the track rather than invest with Musk but it is genuinely difficult to think of another CEO with as much capital markets hustle.

<comment><USER8> Musk seems to be really really good at working his customers, suppliers, governments, financiers, media, and public. In addition to having rather spectacular engineering sense. It's like a perfect storm for being a business magnet.

<comment><USER9> I think you mean magnate; a magnet goes on your refrigerator.

<comment><USER8> [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1037976743963840512?lang...](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1037976743963840512?lang=en)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Fiat have made mostly terrible cars and could have done what Tesla did but chose not to.

My concern, though, is that Fiat get to continue making mostly terrible ICE cars thanks to what feels like green washing.

<comment><USER11> fiat has marvelous compacts. the fire engine derivatives just run forever, the diesel made school twenty years ago and have an edge still today.

they have no clue on full size cars, and still pay for the socialized handling the Italian car sector was subject into the nineties, but below management they still have good tech and when they put their eggs into the right basket, the output is just phenomenal.

and the Alfa tonale was a thing from unsuspecting times.

<comment><USER12> _fiat has marvelous compacts. the fire engine derivatives just run forever, the diesel made school twenty years ago and have an edge still today._

Whatever FIAT is importing for the US market hasn't been particularly reliable.

 _they still have good tech and when they put their eggs into the right basket, the output is just phenomenal._

Speaking of, the one thing that surprised me with the 500 was how primitive its bluetooth support was. I think it will only sync contacts with a phone (playing audio is just not in the cards).

<comment><USER13> My 500 has been great, but I always hear horror stories about the 500 in the US. I believe they have assembly in Mexico, which I assume is for the North American market. They are also built in Poland(?) if memory serves, so it may be that I have a European vehicle here.

And yes, bluetooth is weirdly primitive. I prefer aux anyway, so no big deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> EU laws forcing an EU car maker to fund their (foreign) competition. Classic foot gun moment as a result of over regulation.

<comment><USER15> Not sure how this is an example of over regulation.

Regulations goal is to reduce CO2 output. If a private company want to achieve that by funding a foreign electric car company to create a reduced total footprint, that's their choice.

Ultimately the regulation achieves its goal, reducing CO2. That fact it's done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can only be seen as an extra win.

<comment><USER14> > Regulations goal is to reduce CO2 output.

Maybe that regulation is stupid and it causes the wrong incentives? If you wanted more electric cars, there are plenty of ways of making them more appealing thus creating a market for them. Like improving charging infrastructure.

Putting a gun to the head of one if not the largest manufacturing industry on the continent is pretty stupid way of doing so.

> That fact it's done by increasing competition in the automotive industry can > only be seen as an extra win.

Yeah great, us europeans will all be thrilled by the increased foreign competition and dead local manufacturers who have EU regulation burdens and foreigners who don't.

<comment><USER15> The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That's just one possible solution.

Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? They're easily an order of magnitude smaller.

Finally if Tesla are building _in the EU_ then they're contributing to the EU manufacturing industry, and they're beholden to EU regulation.

<comment><USER14> > The goal is to reduce CO2, not create more electric cars. That's just one > possible solution.

Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those goals.

> Additionally have you seen how small Tesla is compared to someone like VW? > They're easily an order of magnitude smaller.

A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding them with free money.

> Finally if Tesla are building in the EU then they're contributing to the EU > manufacturing industry, and they're beholden to EU regulation.

So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.

<comment><USER15> > Well shooting yourself in the foot is a pretty bad way to achieve those > goals.

You're going to have to explain why this is shooting ourselves in the foot. I'm still not seeing it.

> A US company benefiting from much looser regulation at home and most of all > the insane FED money printing making its way to the stock market and funding > them with free money.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what your trying to say. Which regulations are so much looser and can you explain what advantages they provide to Tesla vs an EU company.

> So we can all be factory workers for americans. Great.

EU companies own factories in the US (VW is a notable example), and US companies own factories in the EU. Nothing wrong with that.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is the human body structure best suited to their intelligent brain? - <AUTHOR>

In other words, could there be any kind of other body structure that could have helped even more the intelligent brain we have. Of course taking into the Aesthetics too. <comment><USER2> The brain is our most expensive organ, requiring massive calories and qualities protein/fat sources. In addition, it takes decade(s) to fully mature. In nature, that is a ridiculous reproduction disadvantage.

The only way that can evolve is through tools and social cohesion. For a small mammal to evolve to tackle on bigger game and thus more efficient protein sources, it either needs these things or adapt its body. Unfortunately, adapting your body is expensive as well. The only positive feedback loop is through tools and social behavior.

Wolves are intelligent animals as well. Probably as smart as toddlers. They are very social creatures that take on much bigger game. But they don't have hands.

From using tools, primates were able to streamline their body mass and reduce apparatus needed to digest vegetation. Thus, from the point of view of efficiency, I think the human body is very optimized for an intelligent brain.

It's not the only way it can happen, but it's very probable (at least to evolve from existing animals).

<comment><USER3> My dogs, descendants of wolves, don't have hands. They do however have access to hands. They have access to a shelter that was created with tools. They ride to the vet in an automobile when they have healthcare needs.

They lay on the couch while I'm working to produce what can be transformed into protein for them. It's a pretty efficient and pretty safe strategy evolved in a few tens of thousands of years.

There was a comedic bit about dogs in New York City: If an alien saw two creatures of a different species and one was picking up the other's poop, which would it deduce was in charge?

The great-chain-of-being is the product of revelation not scientific method.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The human body is suited to the human brain to some degree. The human brain has human intelligence. While the discussion of intelligence in general and not just the human type is an exercise in anthropomorphism, there is no deductive basis for any claim that the human brain is intelligent in an absolute sense.

We can turn the ontological argument on its head. I can conceive of an omniscient and omnipotent intelligence, therefore human intelligence is very low on the absolute scale of intelligence and calling it intelligent may be misleading.

Going further, the question "How is a human with a different sort of body still a human?" hints at an assumption of mind-body dualism. Radical Skepticism aside, is a disembodied brain still a human?

I guess Aesthetics with a capital \\#a were thrown into the mix to make the question less trivial?

</comment><comment><USER4> Evolution never creates the best, only the good enough. Nature is not an engineer - her only method is trial and error.

<comment><USER5> It really depends on what you mean by "best".

When seen on a biochemical level, evolution creates highly optimized stuff on "hardware" as well as "software" level. (Also, it is quite telling that it is often impossible to distinguish between those.)

When interpreting this as hardware/circuit/software design, the "code" produced by evolution is by far not the cleanest or nicest or best understandable. It is more the kind of code that you see in mature projects, decades old, where the simple algorithms have been optimized more and more, making them harder to undestand, but still correct, robust and with better performance.

Interestingly, even the best engineers need lots of trial and error to finally come up with these algorithms. Maybe their optimization is more targeted than evolution's, but engineers also have almost no time for their experiments (when seen on the scale of evolution's time.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Our hands are the most important part, it gives us alot of ability to build tools.Its highly complex and only humans posses this, its one of natures marvels. So i dont know about other parts but the the hand and the fingurs have to be the same.

<comment><USER7> And walking upright so we can use our hands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I belive this should be labeled "Ask HN: ..." so the title doesn't lead to wrong expectations.</comment>


15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse copyrighted. Will they do it again? - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/ <comment><USER2> I don't know whether the copyright period should be 14 years or forever. But what really pisses me off is that the new copyright period is always applied _retrospectively_. By extending the copyright retrospectively the government is giving wealth to the copyright-holders by taking it away from the non- copyright-holders.

When Walt Disney made Snow White in 1937 the copyright period was 56 years. That means he implicitly agreed to a contract with the public that said, "Mr Disney will get an exclusive right to publish and distribute this movie for 56 years, after which time anyone can do it". Like any contact that is freely entered into, it should not be altered. Arbitrarily extending the exclusivity period on this contract is just as wrong as _reducing_ it.

If the government reduces company tax rates, does it refund companies that have paid the higher rate in previous years? No.

You want to make copyright last for 100 years? Fine, but it should only apply to works which are created from now on.

<comment><USER3> I am not sure the government can/should make laws that are retroactive. It just _feels_ wrong. The teleco immunity being the largest in recent memory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire.

The case for limited copyright was laid down as early as the U.S. Constitution, and the Congressional Copyright Act of 1790. Lawrence Lessig has devoted much of his life's work to this exact question. It's also analyzed in this surprising and recent paper from the U.S. House Republican Study Committee, knocking down the three myths of copyright protection:

[http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study- Committ...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/113633834/Republican-Study-Committee- Intellectual-Property-Brief)

The protracted terms of modern copyright "protection" \-- life plus 90 years, etc. -- stifles invention without rewarding creative artists, who are long dead and have no need for incentives to create new work.

Another commenter is entirely right on this about Disney. Much of Disney's own creative work (and enormous wealth) comes from repurposing the work of others: Carlo Collodi, the Brothers Grimm, Mark Twain, Joel Chandler, and on and on. We see Disney innovating in exactly the way the U.S. Founders intended in limiting copyright to 14 years.

Disney and the rest of Big Content, however, have paid lobbyists to lock up their own derivative works so that nobody can extend them in the way Disney reused the originals. It's a corporate scam, pure and simple, with manifold ill consequences for consumers and artists alike.

<comment><USER5> The incentives still exist in the present, even given a future when the creative artists are long dead. The ability to pass the rights down to descendants and the increase in the value of rights for the purposes of selling them to obtain cash can be significant incentives in the present.

That Disney is hypocritical in their support of extended copyrights is irrelevant. What we are left with is a law, which independent of how it was passed exists now. As rayiner points out -- what is the motivation for repealing it. Once we consider copyrights a form of property, it seems tenuous to put arbitrary limitations on them that do not apply to other forms of property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Original US copyright law was for 14 years, with an optional extension for an additional 14. I think that's more than adequate for the original author to benefit from a government-created monopoly.

<comment><USER7> Aren't all property rights "government-created monopolies"?

<comment><USER8> "Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property" \-- Bastiat

The idea being that proper governments recognize rights that already exist, they don't create those rights. One could argue that so-called intellectual property rights aren't rights that existed before governments created them.

<comment><USER9> _The idea being that governments recognize rights that already exist, they don 't create those rights._

I keep my copy of Hobbes bookmarked for occasions such as this.

 _Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man._

And, a few paragraphs later, the refutation of your assertion:

 _To this war of every man against every man this also is consequent, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no 'mine' and 'thine' distinct, but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it._

<comment><USER10> > Hereby it is manifest that, during the time men live without a common power > to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and > such a war as is of every man against every man.

As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false.

For example, there is no one common power that controls all American and British people. Yet Americans and British people travel to each other's homes, have relationships with each other, trade with each other, and sometimes even move from one country to another. All of this is done peacefully, with no common power that controls both sides of the equation. Same thing with relationships between Swiss people and Japanese people, or Chinese people and Egyptians, or Brazilians and Indians, or anybody else that you choose.

If Hobbes' idea was true, wouldn't the relationship between two average people that have no common power be rather warlike rather than the mutually beneficially peaceful relationships that we see every day?

<comment><USER9> _As there is no global government or other power, we can observe the relationships between people that have no common power and prove his assertion false._

Or we can observe that though someone may travel abroad, at home they are subject to a power (their home country's laws) and abroad they are subject to a power (the laws of the country they're visiting).

And then we can observe that your analogy really works best with the countries themselves, and _of course_ the history of international relations is full of countries respecting each others' territory, sovereignty, etc. without any need for some third party to exercise power and hold them in check. Right?

Right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is no good reason for copyright to ever expire. That is to say, the economic framework that's well-accepted in policy circles has no way to express the value of letting copyright expire. So copyright keeps getting extended, because it's "obvious."

Let me put it another way. Why don't physical property rights expire? The argument of: "well then other people could use them!" doesn't fly, because the same thing applies to physical property. So long as Disney keeps making use of Mickey Mouse, what economic reason is there to give someone else a crack at the character? Would it create more economic value? What economic theory tells us that?

You can talk about "bribery" all you want, but at base there is a theoretical problem. The accepted belief is that there are no downsides to protecting property rights, and there is no way to express the value of allowing property rights to expire without sounding like a crunchy hippie.

<comment><USER12> Recognize that copyrights clash with basic property rights. Why can't I use my computer or printer however I wish, even if that means copying existing content?

The reason is a fundamental tradeoff -- we've accepted a bargain to deny ourselves some fundamental property rights temporarily under the theory that, in the long run, we'll get more innovation and content and further the "progress of science and useful arts", as the US constitution puts it.

If we're not making that progress, then it no longer becomes a tradeoff, and the laws are simply breaking property rights for no reason.

So, yes, if you care at all about property rights there's a very good reason to believe in limiting copyrights.

<comment><USER5> What, specifically, are the "basic property rights" that copyrights clash with?

I ask because the general statement of "use my ... however I wish" is obviously way too broad; I can't use my computer to commit fraud, or my printer to print dollars. More generally, I would say the distilled basic property right is to use my property in a way that does not violate anyone else's rights or break any laws.

The most basic property right is the right to exclude others from the use of your property, and in that sense, if we accept that "intellectual property" is property, then it seems to apply there too.

I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner's comment and felt instinctive disgust followed by grudging admiration -- the idea there is really messing with my while framework for thinking about copyrights.

<comment><USER13> "I don't think I'm the only one in this thread who saw rayiner [...]"

Uhm, no. Like many of rayiners "arguments" it's authoritative rhetorical bullshit. He frames the question, makes some assertions that aren't backed up and leaves the burden of proof on the reader. If you look closely you'll find he's not even taking much of a position on the subject. So even if you manages to disapprove what he's claiming you'll end up in a discussion you can't win since he's the one making up the rules as you go along. Actually this is quite similar to how copyright keeps getting extended.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't really have much of a problem with Mickey Mouse getting an infinite copyright extension. I do, however, have a problem with the fallout to everything else. What I'd like to see is the following:

First, under current copyright law, copyright is granted automatically without having to register for one. This makes it complicated to track down the copyright holder if you want to get permission to use a work. But I can see the benefits, so that people don't get exploited as free creative labor just because they aren't professionals who can navigate the copyright registration process.

But, what would be beneficial is for any unregistered work to have a shorter copyright term before it falls into public domain. Then, require re- registration of each work in order to extend copyright on it. That way, abandoned / worthless works will fall into the public domain automatically, and valuable works can still be protected, but at a cost. Just like a bank charges you an annual fee for a safe deposit box, the government should charge for granting copyright protection on a recurring basis.

<comment><USER15> Songwriters everywhere would hate this. :-) I speak from the recent experience of trying to register _one_ cd of seven songs, some of which were previously released on my website, some of which weren't, some of which had lyrics previously published, some of which weren't. The email threads with the library of congress on how to properly register, and how to properly amend my previous registrations, are legendary. If a songwriter with 50-100 (or more) songs were given a semi-short registration expiration, they'd never get anything done.

<comment><USER14> When I mentioned shorter, I meant shorter than "life of the author plus [bignum] years". My main concern is to figure out how to track down the original author, and also for preservation efforts (esp old films that are rotting away, and no one can archive copies of them legally if the "copyright holder" can't be tracked down, or is unknown).

An alternative could be compulsory licensing of unregistered works that are beyond a given age. So that if someone uses it, and no one comes by to claim it is theirs, then all is good. But if a copyright holder shows up (and can prove ownership), then appropriate fees can be transferred at a standard rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's actually a chance that congress is in a state where they could reject another retroactive extension. The two forces that could crush it are 1) public interest backlash, as we saw with SOPA, getting a chunk of democrats who aren't on the industry payroll and 2) the 'corporate welfare' argument that gets the tea party republicans. Congress is in a state of near-anarchy right now, since the traditional 'stick' of earmarks doesn't exist to keep the ideological members in line, and for once it could work out in the public's interests.

All that said, I'm not holding my breath.

</comment><comment><USER17> Between this and the patent law reformation it looks like the war for IP is going to happen in the next few years.

Honestly though, I can't imagine a future in which Mickey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ever enter the public domain.

<comment><USER18> After visiting Disney World, it is shocking to think how much money-generating activity is associated with those 3 circles that make up the Mickey Mouse sillouhette. I would imagine there is a compelling argument to make for preserving exiting business infrastructure associated with that and similar existing IP to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions over time.

I disagree with that argument, but I could imagine some folks in congress letting that be what compels them.

<comment><USER19> It's not clear that it's actually _generating_ money, as opposed to _transferring_ money to Disney from other people.

There is certainly a compelling argument to make for preserving something that generates a lot of wealth. Not so much for preserving something that merely transfers a lot of wealth to an already very wealthy business.

<comment><USER20> Didn't you know? Transferring money _is_ generating money!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Maybe some good will come of having a dsyfunctional congress unable to pass new legislation.

<comment><USER9> While components of the federal budget have intense lobbying efforts dedicated to them, the budget as a whole doesn't. Which is why there's no incentive to pass a full budget: there's no bribery in it, and lots of political points to score by refusing and blaming the other guys.

The copyright lobby, on the other hand, is a reliable bribe source every time they want something. So I'd expect an extension to just glide on through.

<comment><USER22> Let's not get carried away! There are no bribes. These are merely campaign contribution. Legal campaign contributions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Let's say the copyright period is not extended. Perhaps the government should then _auction off_ the rights to Snow White, rather than putting it into the public domain. That is, Disney could _buy_ a 25-year copyright extension, but they would have to pay through the nose for it.

I like the idea of being able to watch Snow White on Youtube for free, but I prefer the idea of significantly boosting cancer research.

<comment><USER23> That kind of implies that everything we create inherently belongs to the government, "they" let us use it for the period of copyright, and then it's theirs again to sell off. I can make a case for copyright ending and creative works no longer having an owner, but I can't make a case (philosophically) for them to automatically belong to the government.

<comment><USER2> But in a democracy the government isn't "they", it is "we". If we all have the right to copy and distribute a particular creative work, then we can collectively decide to trade that right for something we find more valuable (such as cancer research).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article misses an important point. The reason that Sonny Bono was interested in extending copyright is that he was a scientologist, and the Church of Scientology is deathly afraid of their works reaching the public domain. If I remember correctly, they were among the main lobbyists for the last extension.

</comment><comment><USER25> A reasonable compromise is to allow copyright extensions to those who pay a fee for it.

At a minimum, this will allow abandoned copyrights to slide into the public domain.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'd rather Congress vote on specific exceptions rather than blanket it for everything. I'm one to believe our culture actually _is_ for the poorer due to the lack of historical works entering the public domain. The problem is that it's a counterfactual, so we wouldn't really know if it were true.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why aren't characters trademarked instead of copyrighted? I feel like it would make so much more sense. Disney can have Mickey Mouse for as long as it wants, but the company has little to no financial need to keep 100-year-old cartoons out of the public domain.

<comment><USER27> That's close to how I'd like to see it work. My system:

1\. The copying right would have a shorter term. Maybe go back to 28 years with perhaps one renewal term.

2\. The derivative work right would have a very long term.

3\. Fair use would be expanded to explicitly recognize things sampling, parody, and the like. (Yes, I know this would be tricky to do well).

I think this strikes a good balance between making cultural works readily available and affordable, and saving us from seeing a poorly animated Calvin and Hobbes selling breakfast cereal to kids in TV ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The biggest problem is that Disney is paying the lawmakers (in contributions) for these permanent rights, but not paying the people (the citizens) who grant them. This needs to be taxed. It's property they say? Property taxes.

This fixes almost everything about copyright terms.

</comment><comment><USER29> Is there any kind of distinguishment between characters and singular works? While I can see both sides for characters remaining copyrighted, I don't see much of a good reason why a singular work like steamboat willie should still be under lock and key.

</comment><comment><USER30> At this point, I would be actually _happy_ for Disney IP to be in copyright forever, as long as they leave the copyright law alone and works start entering public domain again.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra Yes.

This is a rare case where law of headlines fail.

</comment><comment><USER31> They are bought and paid, so yes.</comment>


America Thought It Could Shape China. But China Is Shaping America - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/chinas-cultural-power/600049/ <comment><USER2> > an indication that the firm, like many others, has internalized Chinese > values. Activision Blizzard makes a lot of money in China

How is simple capitalism Chinese values?</comment>