3 ms·

The idea is great, but such a radical change it probably has no chance of being realized. Perhaps a less disruptive change would be to maintain copyright prote

The idea is great, but such a radical change it probably has no chance of being realized. Perhaps a less disruptive change would be to maintain copyright protections the way they are, but attack this at the penalty level: basically enshrine the idea that > "X was not available for purchase or streaming in a DRM-free format in my country at the time I got a copy of it from a torrent." Would be a valid defense for personal use, capping penalties at 1$ or so, without opening the public-domain box and opening the field to companies instantly cropping up to snipe a 5-year-old TV show the day it goes free, and resell it.

dmix 9y ago
That's a good idea. Similar to 'probable cause' but from the citizens perspective or the various legal tests created by courts to ascertain guilt. Basically that the consumer went to reasonable lengths to purchase the product legally and wasn't able to as a legal defense. If the owner doesn't make the content reasonably available than they have no claim that it shouldn't be consume by other grey-market means. As easy as torrenting is, it's still not ideal to just watching it one Netflix or Prime. There are real incentives to not pirate assuming the content creator utilizes these (mainstream) options. This creates market incentives to maximize the return on the copyrighted content and still forces the bigger distribution platforms to follow the rules.