Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Last time someone uttered something similar, I didn't get an answer, so I'll ask it to you: what entitles you to free access to any song, movie or book?
 help



This: The basic idea of freedom, that I should be able to generally do things including accessing media without interference from a third party.

Someone using a physical property can possibly deprive others of its use. This applies to the physical mediums of songs, movies, or books, but not the songs, movies, or text of the books themselves.

Intellectual property isn't real, it's a concept that exists to support copyright, which exists for this exact purpose stated in the Constitution:

"[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

I'm ok with accepting a temporary limitation on my freedom to support those who make songs, movies, or books, but life of the author + 70 years, plus the ability to assign the right to corporations which don't die, is not reasonably "limited" these days. It should be something like 5 years today.

No one is entitled to be a songwriter, movie director, or author; society needs people doing other things too.


Because it’s effectively free to copy.

I want copyright to be completely abolished and patronage to re-become normal and common. Most of my favorite artists already distribute most of their work for free and rely on the latter.


What entitles you to use force to stop me creating a copy of something?

Not me, the state. That is significantly different.

The reason is damaging someone's livelihood in the cases I mentioned. Or large scale economic damage in case you're copying money.


The fact that you use the state as a proxy changes little.



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

Search: