[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Nor does it make it wrong.

Artists are not "entitled" to be paid for their works (they have to convince someone their works are valuable); they are especially not "entitled" to be paid for the same work for a hundred years. They are given a limited-time, partial monopoly of certain uses of their works--with the purpose of promoting progress in the arts & sciences. When their monopoly stops promoting progress and creativity in others, it should end.

Want to stop downloading of current music? Put copyrights back where they used to be: 28 years maximum. Throw everything created before 1980 into the public domain, and watch the creative explosions as new movies, songs, books and other derivatives flood the marketplace. Watch education grow as children have easy access to e-versions of the important texts of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

So, if we give people access to 80’s music, this will, quite miraculously, cut down on the sharing of newer music? I don’t know how to tell you this, but with few exceptions, 80’s music really kinda sorta sucked.

How did you come to the conclusion that a child’s education is in some way stifled as a result of their inability to access eVersions of books that are, in all likelihood, freely available at their local library? The dismal state of education has very little to do with access to information, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is at an all time high, and more to do with the systems inability to teach children HOW to think and process that information.

And again, by law, unless they give it away, artists are entitled to be paid for their work. If a work of art is only available commercially, at cost, obtaining it freely is against the law. You can argue otherwise, but you’re doing so outside of current copyright laws.

The foundation of our culture is being held for ransom by publishing houses, movie production companies and the RIAA.

I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous.