3 ms·
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 publi
by 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.