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

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.

 help



> life of the author + 70 years ...

So you object to its current implementation, not to the principle itself, which is what I was replying to. I agree it's absurd, especially when the rights can be transferred to corporations, which cannot even create.

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

Isn't that up to the individual to decide?




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

Search: