Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
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.
|
It would be hyperbole if, on multiple occasions, he hadn’t already expressed the view that copyright law is some sort of impediment to freedom, and that all art should just be like, free for the taking, man.