[Good Old Neon]

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.

This last sentence strikes me as hyperbolic.

I don’t buy the black and white idea that all corporations are bad – it’s simply not true.

And though I respect the hippie movement on some levels, many of the tenants it espoused are simply not sustainable (not to mention, attainable) in the real world. Which is why, outside of university life, the hippie movement is pretty much dead. The reason being, our parents came to the realization that in adult life, a free-loving, free-living lifestyle is not so good at keeping a roof over your head, and food on the table. I may not like that reality any more than you do, but like it or not, it is what it is – r.e.a.l.i.t.y

Whether you like it or not, art is a commodity, and it’s creators are every bit as entitled to profit from it’s sale as those who traffic in toasters and refrigerators.

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.

Aside from being hyperbolic, what you’ve stated here reads like a cartoonish satire of the publishing industry. No one is being forced into anything. Don’t like the terms of a contract, fine, don’t sign it. As there are myriad publishing houses (both large and small, corporate and independent) available, not to mention the option to self-publish - no writer, musician, etc need sign a contract that does not serve their interests. As with any industry, there are good and bad eggs – who one chooses to sign/deal with is, ultimately, the responsibility of the individual.