Hacker News Reader

Comment by prospero | Hacker News Reader

Stallman says that the inherent tension in copyrights is between the consumer and publisher, and that the consumer clearly takes precedence. You could just as easily, however, say it's a tension between the short and long-term benefits for the consumer; on the one hand, copyright weakens the rights of the consumer, but on the other hand it guarantees they will continue to have quality media to consume.

I don't claim to know where the balance lies between these two considerations, but I do know that there has to be a balance, even if we are solely concerned for the consumer's well-being.

View on HN

> Stallman says that the inherent tension in copyrights is between the consumer and publisher, ....

Actually, I don't think he said that at all. He said that, in passing laws related to copyright, the government is, ideally, acting entirely to maximize the benefit to the public. He says that copyright exists in order to encourage authors to produce more works, because that should benefit the public.

> I don't claim to know where the balance lies between these two considerations, but I do know that there has to be a balance, ....

Stallman doesn't agree with you. He specifically states that the idea that copyright should balance the rights of various parties, is a bad one. Read the section titled, The first error: "striking a balance". It ends: "Since the idea of 'striking a balance' between publishers and readers denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it."

You're right, I put that badly. He says that the copyright issue is treated as a tension between consumer and publisher, and that this is a problem. I don't agree with this characterization.

I think the publishers are absolutely concerned with their bottom line when they complain about lost sales. I also think that there's enough substance to their slippery slope argument (given time, they'll lose so many sales they'll become insolvent) that it's wrong to dismiss it out of hand. Publishers aren't faceless entities intent on trading our freedoms for money, any more than a person who downloads a DVD screener is a hardened criminal. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, and makes it that much harder to have a real conversation about the future of media.

To see the difference between "for the benefit of publishers" and "for the benefit of consumers who read what the publishers create" you just have to ask which applies to retroactive copyright term extension.

That to me is the act of an entity that is "intent on trading our freedoms for money".

I'd say that similar is true of any rich industry that lobbies for laws to protect their outmoded business models. Isn't a tax on imported sugar a minor loss in freedom that results in a major increase in money for certain groups.

I think the essay agrees more with your second statement than first -- that copyright is a trade-off between the public interest in using published works and an interest in encouraging publication through some kind of incentive system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com