3 ms·

I guess I disagree that should be within their rights? Seems like a "reasonable people can disagree" thing to me. I'd just define it as "not making property av

I guess I disagree that should be within their rights? Seems like a "reasonable people can disagree" thing to me. I'd just define it as "not making property available for licensing or purchase for X amount of time" or make them subject to lawsuits for not making good faith efforts to license or sell the property. Seems tractable to me, just not necessarily something easily defined in a HN thread.

hakfoo 4y ago
I figured an alternative angle was to provide a state-managed licensing board. If the original rights-holder doesn't want to sell, or is intentionally obtuse (i. e. making obvious bad-faith offers), you'd be able to buy a license from the state and the rightsholder can claim the funds from the licensing board. The pricing would be intended to be "convenience store pricing"-- too expensive to be a good choice most of the time, but when nothing else is available, (or you want something otherwise unobtainable, like a wide-scale blanket license over a large set of content), it's still a better deal than having to go without.