Hacker News Reader

Comment by lazide | Hacker News Reader

It sounds more like you’re angry that someone is refusing to publish on the platform they own something you personally politically associate with?

Which hey, I get. But they are refusing to publish it because they don’t want to be associated with it anymore, and they bought exclusive rights to it from producer, so…

And I don’t see Joe Rogan saying he is in a hurry to return the money Spotify gave him for this exclusive licensing deal either.

The only real way I can think to ‘solve’ that problem would be to make it illegal to do exclusive licensing deals for content.

Which I personally would be behind (it is also at the root of the whole streaming provider wars, among many many others), but has very far reaching consequences intellectual property wise.

View on HN

What could be done, is to pass a law saying that exclusivity contracts are only enforceable when the content is actually being made available. I doubt there would be any real support for such a law by anyone who matters though.

True, though that could also happen with the right court case. A bunch of right to repair related stuff, ‘right of fair use’, etc. has been won that way.

Intellectual property law has always had an element of ‘society gives you these protections with the idea and understanding that it makes EVERYONE wealthier in the long run’. There is no NATURAL RIGHT (as in, something that will happen unless interfered with) to exclusive anything related to knowledge.

If anything, it requires extraordinary work and legal protections for it to be even a potential thing, and that is becoming more and more the case.

To get that protection from Society (without it just being a naked theft from everyone anyway), there should be some exchange or actual improvement for the rest of society.

Saying that at a minimum if you have exclusive rights to sell or distribute something, you must be selling or distributing it at a rate that allows normal people to access it (there is the tough part - how do you define that!) or you lose exclusivity and anyone can distribute copies for free - seems perfectly fair.

It also encourages archiving and retention of our history, which would be a good sell for overall society I imagine.

Some issues of course with this position (as I was thinking it through).

- this basically means no one has any IP right to stop information being distributed at all. So if someone say writes a book, then is later embarrassed by it, they couldn’t stop people from publishing it. They currently can.

- this means highly valuable IP (source code to your secret search engine backend?) is very difficult to control. It would also probably apply to things like manufacturing howtos, blueprints, etc.

- Even if you say ‘distributed’ means publicly viewed, this probably impacts distributed/licensed software in various ways, and some of these others. If someone is able to open it in a hex editor that is certainly going to count as ‘viewable’. If they can do that without signing an NDA (which would probably be impacted by this too?), or going through a gate and doing it at your secure facility, that probably counts as ‘public’ too.

- so then there is no way to stop someone else from distributing your now deprecated software? Potentially for a fee?

The only real way to solve that problem is to stop caving to the deranged woke mob.

It’s been happening since there were books to burn. This isn’t particularly new, just the venue looks unfamiliar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com