3 ms·
It certainly is, from a legal standpoint. From a moral standpoint, I think the fact that the story was written in 1975, 34 years ago, makes it really a borderl
by swombat 17y ago
It certainly is, from a legal standpoint.
From a moral standpoint, I think the fact that the story was written in 1975, 34 years ago, makes it really a borderline case whether Woody Allen should still have exclusivity over the story he published and profited from for 30+ years.
Even going by the 2x14 years principle, he's out. Imho, the world would be a better place if there was a deadline of about 30 years on the exclusivity of reprinting rights.
- lucumo 17y agoThe problem with morals is that they are different from person to person. If you want to have a debate on copyright law, I'm perfectly happy to have it, but I don't think anyone should rewrite copyright law based only on their own morals. After all, that's why laws are created, to unify all morals and all interests in a country. In any case, I don't think HN should be a place to swap pirated stories (or movies, music, etc.). Especially not so when they are as terrible and uninteresting as this one.
- delackner 17y agoI'm surprised that the original comment here was voted down. It was thoughtful and although I disagree, it expresses a point of view that is respectful. The Law governing the area you reside in is not magically imbued with moral authority. It is simply a set of rules, some of them enforced, some not, that are backed up by the threat of violence. When the law contradicts a society's overwhelming sense of morality, conflict occurs and either the law changes or (worse) police begin to refuse to apply the law, further undermining the clear authority of the law.