Quote:
Originally Posted by radleyp
The Constitution provides explicitly for protection for copyright (and patent) holders. Such protection, moreover, is an encouragement to create more and maybe better and more popular things.
|
That was the original intent, and back when copying/distributing was very expensive and copyright terms were limited, it actually worked to encourage more artistic creation. These days, where copyright is constantly being extended (both in terms and punishments) and electronic copying/distribution costs are very cheap (compared to what they were), a lot of people would say that the only thing the current copyright law does is promote greed.
It's nice to think of copyright as trying to achieve a balance between the public good and encouraging the arts, but that is only true from a historical perspective. The laws are tipping that balance further and further towards the benefit of publishers/distributors, but technology is further and further reducing the value of what they provide. At some point, the old model is going to need to be changed. Right now the industry is doing everything it can to resist that change, and many consumers are reacting by losing respect for the industries rights. I think the artists are, unfortunately, being caught in the middle.