7 ms·

As much as I hate copyright if someone doesn’t want to sell something to you or licence it or share it they are under no obligation to. I’m sorry but why do you

As much as I hate copyright if someone doesn’t want to sell something to you or licence it or share it they are under no obligation to. I’m sorry but why do you feel you have a right to any content? It’s just a movie/tv show/book. Thou as a write this I consider the implications of it was educational and only available to a nation or race and not having it would put one at a disadvantage ala scientific papers...

tluyben2 7y ago
The thing is; they do want to sell it to me; it will appear in a few months/years. At least in case of films/shows. So that ‘the copyright holder does not want’ is not true; they just signed contracts with actors, writers etc for a certain region to pay less and/or get more %.
jdietrich 7y ago
Copyright is a specific legal right granted to authors, with the (ostensible) intent of balancing the rights of authors against the rights of readers. Copying a bunch of bits is legal by default, but we specifically outlaw copying certain bits under certain specific conditions. Copyright is not unconditional, universal or perpetual. In the EU, there is an element of "use it or lose it" due to the Orphan Works Directive - if the copyright holder cannot be located, then national libraries have the right to digitise and distribute the orphan work. In the digital age, there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for some kind of "unavailability exception" to protect the rights of readers in poorly-served markets and prevent anti-competitive hoarding of copyrighted works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive
Shish2k 7y ago
You're arguing "you don't have a [legal/moral] right" (which is true) They're arguing "it's a victimless crime" (which is also true) These are related things, but they aren't contradictory

tluyben2 7y ago

The thing is; they do want to sell it to me; it will appear in a few months/years. At least in case of films/shows. So that ‘the copyright holder does not want’ is not true; they just signed contracts with actors, writers etc for a certain region to pay less and/or get more %.

jdietrich 7y ago

Copyright is a specific legal right granted to authors, with the (ostensible) intent of balancing the rights of authors against the rights of readers. Copying a bunch of bits is legal by default, but we specifically outlaw copying certain bits under certain specific conditions. Copyright is not unconditional, universal or perpetual. In the EU, there is an element of "use it or lose it" due to the Orphan Works Directive - if the copyright holder cannot be located, then national libraries have the right to digitise and distribute the orphan work. In the digital age, there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for some kind of "unavailability exception" to protect the rights of readers in poorly-served markets and prevent anti-competitive hoarding of copyrighted works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Works_Directive

Shish2k 7y ago

You're arguing "you don't have a [legal/moral] right" (which is true) They're arguing "it's a victimless crime" (which is also true) These are related things, but they aren't contradictory