Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
Actually, I do believe at this point and moment in time that copyright is absolutely useless for the individual creator of culture....
|
I disagree. (Surprise!
)
Part of the problem is that you are assuming that every content creator is in the same situation as you, and shares your mindset. I don't know your specific situation, but let's assume based on your comments that we are talking about a lone individual who is either self-published, or working with a small publisher that does not have extensive financial resources.
On one hand, it's unlikely that you could stop people distributing your works via P2P, at least not without enraging a few techno-libertarians. It's also unlikely that if another artist plagiarizes your work, and that artist does not have much success, you would bother to do much more than send them a nasty letter.
However, let's say you copyright and self-publish a book, and 18 months later there's a big-budget Hollywood movie that used your book's plot ideas, character names, even specific dialog. I'm going to guess that somehow or another, you will come up with the resources to demand your due.
Similarly, I used to work with a lot of photographers. Every once in awhile, a client would use an image without permission, or put the image into wider or more extensive use than they paid for. Photographers don't have huge bankrolls -- it's a pretty lean business for everyone except an elite top tier -- but they can still rely on copyright laws to protect their IP, and receive the payment that is their due for their work and its usage. (Many pro photographers are very protective of their IP, by the way.)
Copyright doesn't just protect the Big Bad Corporations. As Elfwreck points out, it also protects the (small) content creators as well. Even if DRM falls by the wayside (which I view as possible but not terribly likely), copyright will be around for a long time.