Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
Really, you want to see them turned into rock stars simply because they’re breaking the law – wow, that strikes me as dangerously irresponsible and shortsighted. Given the ubiquity of digital media, and the increasing saturation of filesharing outlets, your little dream world may very well end with writers and musicians unable to ply their trades – filesharing may save you a little money, but ultimately, that savings comes at the expense of the person responsible for writing that book, making that music, filming that movies, creating that piece of software, etc.
|
What's with all the hyperbole, though? It's annoying to have to read through.
As with the hippie movement, the goal was, I believe, to cut out the middle man. (that is, "corporations are bad, m'kay?").
Why is it always about
the authors when we're talking about copyright, and never about the whole system? It's pretty easy to argue that they will suffer unduly, and you might even feel sorry for them, as they're usually individuals, but the big guy standing behind them forcing them to sign their extortionist contracts is always ignored in the debate. Very convenient, that. Businesses come, go, die, and resurrect. This is capitalism.
Why are copyright-businesses different? Why should they stay alive? It's not like some other business won't pop up to take it's place, to "serve" the content creator.
Copyright is excusable when it's in the interest of individuals, but when it's being used to prop up an entire industry, something has gone wrong, and protectionism (that is, favoring of specific, usually national, corporations) is happening.
While I don't at all believe in unfettered capitalism, I sure do believe in the pointlessness of protectionism.