Comment by severine | Hacker News Reader

Comment by severine | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Fellow Soulseeker here. The compensation copyright tax ended in 2011:

Cancellation of the fee

On March 24, 2011, the National Court annulled the order that regulates the rates applicable to the various devices and supports recorded with the digital canon. The reason is that, because it is a regulation, it needed procedures related to supporting and economic reports that were not carried out.

On July 12, 2011, the Congress of Deputies voted favorably on a non-law proposal that urges the Government to abolish said canon and replace it with another compensation formula for authors and content owners that is more suited to copies and uses actually made.

On December 31, 2011 the canon was definitively repealed by the newly constituted new Congress of Deputies, being replaced by a new payment this time by the State whose procedure is about to be developed.

Source (in spanish): https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_por_copia_privada_(Espa%...

I join the clapping, sorry for the nitpick!

Nothing to feel sorry about! I don't know how I could have missed that but I'm so lucky it ended! Having said this, I still find myself entitled to search for copies of cultural material I like :)

Still, too lazy/don't have the time to do it.

> I still find myself entitled

I think that sums it up pretty well. Thanks for at least being honest about it.

Is it being entitled wanting to be entertained by a piece of art or media?

That is its very purpose.

Having wants is not being entitled. Thinking that one deserves and should have everything one wants is being entitled.

The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be. If they are an artist creating solely for the purpose of making art for be people to enjoy, then your premise is acceptable. If the artist is trying to earn money for their work, then that is their choice. If the artist wants to release their work for the world to enjoy, there are legit ways of doing that and protecting it so that other cannot prevent that free enjoyment.

I know I'm tilting at windmills with this topic on this particular website, but creating art isn't free and nobody has the right to be entertained by it just by being (either the work or the viewer) be default.

> Having wants is not being entitled. Thinking that one deserves and should have everything one wants is being entitled.

U.S. of A would like to have a word with you.

> The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be.

The purpose of art and media is to generate revenue. People who create just for art are an insignificant minority. The main issue is that when this art does not generate revenue it is thrown away. Then it is no more art. It becomes (like) garbage.

> The purpose of art or media is whatever the creator wants it to be.

Your argument is complicated by the fact that a lot of media, and especially for old out-of-print works, the copyright holder is not the person who actually created the work. At best it is a descendant family member, at worst it is a person or corporation who came into the copyright without the knowledge and consent of the artist.

We're talking about music from the 40s. The various copyright extensions are part of the problem.

The purpose of copyright, according to the Constitution which gives the government the right to grant it, is to promote the public domain. It's not doing that very effectively now that copyright remains in effect 70 years past the death of the artist.

Being entitled doesn't mean "I should have anything I want without giving something up". It means that I believe that I have "payed" for this in some way. You may be delusional for believing it, or overvaluating you "payment" though. I would add that self-entitlement would be a good term if you are the only one who determined the value of the object of want and the value of your sacrifice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com