In my opinion ? Copyright infringement should apply to those making a profit off any given product they do not own and that's all.
When a society has a system that looks at one side of the story, or after the interests of some groups or a race over another, that's when democracy dies.
Our capitalistic systems are based on profit and power for minorities, those who have the technology, who create products for a market and decide who can get it, where and at what price. Whoever disagrees or bypass the system is an infringer, a criminal or a pariah.
I think this is a very narrow minded philosophy, abiding by the rules to the letter, never dare step a foot off the zebra crossing, never dare free think, do as your government tells you and shut up ...
I for one, do not subscribe to it.
I believe there is a balance out there between a copyright and freedom (as the title of this thread suggests).
Look at this new law in Japan, they can now take away your most fundamental right by putting you in jail just for downloading a song. Imagine the world tomorrow where corporations and technology overlords rule everywhere. a song will cost 1000 dollars and will only be affordable by an elite minority, same for a movie etc ... You want to see the latest Spielberg production cause you heard it was great ? well come back in 10 years cause studios may decide it won't be released in your country cinemas for that long, that will give you the time to save the money needed to pay for whatever price the admission ticket costs.
But why stop there, food is a product that is worth money too, you can't afford it ? you must starve cause it belongs to those who produce it and "stealing" it would be wrong ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
How do you think the definition should look?
|