4 ms·
> Does the artist not have a right to decide whether to license that? They shouldn't have that right. No, let me re-phrase that - others shouldn't be deprived
by MikeUt 5y ago
> Does the artist not have a right to decide whether to license that?
They shouldn't have that right. No, let me re-phrase that - others shouldn't be deprived of their right to enjoy works of art, at the whim of the copyright holder.
Copyright's justification is the promotion of "science and the useful arts", not putting copyright holders in the position of censors on who may enjoy which works.
- klyrs 5y agoAre you also in favor of providing musicians (and actors, writers, producers, etc) a lifestyle where they have the freedom to create, and give away their work for free, without going hungry? Where is that money going to come from?
- MikeUt 5y agoI am okay with the compromise that one must pay for copyrighted works. But if you're not given the option to pay (a reasonable amount), copyright should not prevent you from enjoy that work.
- terrywilcox 5y agoWho decides what is a reasonable amount? In the real world, that's called "negotiation".
- MikeUt 5y agoThat's orthogonal to my point. I only added the reasonable amount requirement because otherwise the change in law is useless - if you don't want to license to someone, just charge a billion dollars. But to answer your question, a court would decide, based on comparable deals, and with ample (but not infinite) latitude for the rightsholder to deviate from established prices.
- etrabroline 5y agoApple decided that all songs sold on iTunes for about a decade would cost exactly 99 cents. The music industry did not collapse. Almost all full size major video game releases have cost $60 for two decades and that industry has grown tremendously. The statutory maximum price could be significantly higher than what is typical to prevent works from being unobtainable without interfering with price negotiations of most works.