undefined | Better HN

0 pointswtallis5y ago0 comments

Copyright protection is not an automatic right that you're entitled to for anything you put effort into creating and want to make money off of. There are more specific requirements for what you need to do to secure copyright protection or patent protection, and there are limits on the exclusive rights those get you. "They worked hard on it and want to charge money for it" is not a sound argument.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

gigatexal5y ago

Edit: I’m dumb. I need to read all of the ruling and then research what fair-use really means.

Again I’m not a lawyer and I know there’s nuance and precedent in the law I just am having a hard time with the seemingly obvious-ness of this case.

Some examples to share how I am thinking of this:

1. Procuring land, paying contractors, buying materials, etc., doesn’t entitle you to rents in perpetuity on say an apartment you build?

Or 2. if I produce music — until that music ages out and becomes a public good — and I own the masters and all the rights to it having put in the work and the time and the money etc., am I not entitled to all the fees from licensing it to be played and consumed?

I am having a hard time seeing how it’s not a sound argument given that it seems very clear that Sun Microsystems put in a lot of work and effort and time and money to get Java off the ground and here Google comes and copies it even when there was an easy way to get a license.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse