Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And who determines that amount to pay?

Surely all use cases can't be the same amount. If I write a song and Disney uses it in a Marvel movie presumably, I should be paid more than if some local high school kid uses a 10 second sample of the song during their garage bands production.

What if a bunch of neo-nazis want to use my song in their propaganda video? Shouldn't I be able to stop them? Their use would be a detriment to not only the commercial value of my work but potentially to myself as well.



> Surely all use cases can't be the same amount.

but why not?

If copyright licenses on works could be had for cheap, everyone benefits. Sure, disney benefits a lot, since they can make use of the work more efficienty in large productions, but the result of _their_ work could also be had for cheap (such as someone else taking the disney movie and remixing it for low cost).

> Shouldn't I be able to stop them?

no you shouldn't, if said neo-nazi propaganda wasn't illegal to begin with.


Well if Disney made the same amount of money as the high school kid, and relied on your song to the same degree, then presumably they would pay the same.

As for what percentage of the derived-work revenue needs to be paid to you, let the deriver pick something that they think is fair (it just can't be $0). It'll be part of the metadata on that work so everybody can see how much of what they're paying is being passed along.

Then we create a culture of amplifying works that are fair to their dependencies. As for those that are doing the bare minimum, we name and shame (and sabotage?).

If it turns out that attributions coverage on 0.00000001% then we can talk about codifying the amounts, but I really think that if we just mandate the transparency, culture will handle the rest.




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

Search: