4 ms·

A lot of content is not available as streaming flat rates but via various rental or purchase platforms (iTunes, Amazon Video, etc.) There’s no (and there shoul

A lot of content is not available as streaming flat rates but via various rental or purchase platforms (iTunes, Amazon Video, etc.) There’s no (and there should be no) obligation to make things available for bargain dollars. If the publisher things the movie is worth a $15 dollar purchase or $8 rental, they can charge that. It’s our right not to watch it if we don’t think it’s worth that.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
Arguably, there's no obligation to make things available at all.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  But there is demand, and in many times, social interest. I'very much in favor of some ruleset that compells the rights owner to either distribute something for reasonable prices[0], or make it available for redistribution and relinquish any distribution rights to it. This should apply to physical products as well - either sell it, or give blueprints to others. -- [0] - reasonable meaning commensurate with other products in its category, and not e.g. $1,000,000 for a movie they want to suppress.
  - realityking 6y ago
    I disagree. I think copyright lasts too long today but I think it’s completely fair if, for example, a photographer wants to not sell a certain picture until the copyright has expired.
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
You're implicitly accepting the frame that copyright is an inherent right that should be granted, rather than a privilege extended to copyright holders on public policy grounds. If copyright owners do more rent-seeking and offer evermore complicated and user-hostile deals, it's well within the purview of our government to alter the terms of copyright extension for public policy purposes. In other words, there's an implicit obligation to offer consumers deals that are better than the counterfactual in which copyrights are not enforced whatsoever. Otherwise, why should we have laws that make things worse for us just so that various copyright holders can maximize the rents they extract from us via intellectual property?
- realityking 6y ago
  > You're implicitly accepting the frame that copyright is an inherent right that should be granted, rather than a privilege extended to copyright holders on public policy grounds. I didn’t make a judgement on this but You’re right that copyright is granted by society but so are many rights, e.g. the idea that an individual can own land. Copyright exists because we live in a capitalist society and we want creators of intellectual property to partake in this economic system. Without copyright, author would not be a profession. That is the basic reason. Everything else are trade-offs and implementation details but we should remember why copyright exists in the first place.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

Arguably, there's no obligation to make things available at all.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
But there is demand, and in many times, social interest. I'very much in favor of some ruleset that compells the rights owner to either distribute something for reasonable prices[0], or make it available for redistribution and relinquish any distribution rights to it. This should apply to physical products as well - either sell it, or give blueprints to others. -- [0] - reasonable meaning commensurate with other products in its category, and not e.g. $1,000,000 for a movie they want to suppress.
- realityking 6y ago
  I disagree. I think copyright lasts too long today but I think it’s completely fair if, for example, a photographer wants to not sell a certain picture until the copyright has expired.

ThrustVectoring 6y ago

You're implicitly accepting the frame that copyright is an inherent right that should be granted, rather than a privilege extended to copyright holders on public policy grounds. If copyright owners do more rent-seeking and offer evermore complicated and user-hostile deals, it's well within the purview of our government to alter the terms of copyright extension for public policy purposes. In other words, there's an implicit obligation to offer consumers deals that are better than the counterfactual in which copyrights are not enforced whatsoever. Otherwise, why should we have laws that make things worse for us just so that various copyright holders can maximize the rents they extract from us via intellectual property?

realityking 6y ago
> You're implicitly accepting the frame that copyright is an inherent right that should be granted, rather than a privilege extended to copyright holders on public policy grounds. I didn’t make a judgement on this but You’re right that copyright is granted by society but so are many rights, e.g. the idea that an individual can own land. Copyright exists because we live in a capitalist society and we want creators of intellectual property to partake in this economic system. Without copyright, author would not be a profession. That is the basic reason. Everything else are trade-offs and implementation details but we should remember why copyright exists in the first place.