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

Oh the bit I found seemed biased is this:

> "He should be able to at least provide for his kids college after his death if his IP still has value in the marketplace."

Why should he, besides because that's a good desire for a family member? If it was a 3rd party wanting this, usually we'd call that rent-seeking behavior and it's usually seen negatively.

> But the creative idea is still theirs

Why is this (besides copyright law ofc)? The carpenter doesn't forbid me from creating a similar chair of him, and if we are talking about a painting and e.g. I was learning I could definitely copy it for learning purposes and everyone would be fine with that, so at which point should it "not be okay" to copy it? To lend to a friend in private? Can I share (in person, no copies) to a group of friends? I bought a painting, can I print it on a t-shirt for myself? What I can do after I purchase a copy of the idea in private should not be up to the author IMHO, and that line is often very blurry.




It's very simple.

Technically as long as you don't sell a product that is a copy, you are "fine" to have said product.

However if you do sell it, it would incentivize a parasitic market.

Something you see sometimes in open source software, esp with IaaS.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

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

Search: