Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Copyright is not a natural right, the balance is totally out of whack. Copyright terms have become abusively long; the deal is not fair anymore.

On the other hand, the inability of small copyright holders to effectively enforce their theoretical rights is also unfair and totally out of whack, but in the other direction.

I am sympathetic to the idea that DRM shouldn't be able to lock people out of accessing works they have a legitimate right to access, and I agree that such abuse needs to be dealt with through updating the legal frameworks for copyright and consumer rights.

However, I think to credibly change the law as you suggest (so, essentially, a publisher can choose DRM or copyright but not both) you'd also have to introduce meaningful criminal penalties for possibly willful and certainly commercial copyright infringement and treat it akin to fraud or theft. Otherwise, why wouldn't the little guy who has a genuine concern about copying reducing the value of the work they are publishing forego copyright entirely and rely only on the DRM, with no rights even theoretically for society as a whole to ever benefit from that work?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: