4 ms·
My proposed solution to this: require frand licenses from copyright holders before they are allowed to bring copyright claims to court. Whatever license they w
by BlackFly 7y ago
My proposed solution to this: require frand licenses from copyright holders before they are allowed to bring copyright claims to court.
Whatever license they want to give, they should be required to offer the same terms to whoever comes along, if they want public assistance in protecting their work. If they think they can keep it locked down on their own then they are free to offer discriminatory license arrangements. If they want help from society protecting their works, whatever is offered to Amazon ought to be available to Netflix, or anybody else, including you and me when we start our own alternative.
Edit: to deal with rights holders that don't want anyone else to offer their content, they are free to make non-discriminatory royalty arrangements with extremely high royalties. However, they must pay those royalties to the government as a tax (again for access to the courts).
- TylerE 7y agoI don't agree with this at all. Part of copyright is maintaining a degree of artistic control - for instance a band not allowing a certain political party to use their song at rallies.
- BlackFly 7y agoYes, but why should society help you with that goal? In order to get something from society, there should be some sort of equivalent exchange. You are asking for a form of violence enforced by society (policing to enforce that the particular political party doesn't play your song). What exactly is society getting from you but a limited opportunity to enjoy the music you created? This is a bad deal for society. Renegotiating it won't stop artists from producing art. If you don't want that political party playing your song, make sure they never hear it: play it only for people you trust.