Hacker News Reader

Comment by MikeUt | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

Are 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?

I 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.

Who decides what is a reasonable amount?

In the real world, that's called "negotiation".

That'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.

Apple 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com