Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
While I agree that there are instances of excesses in copyright law (e.g. copyright periods too long, enforcement too aggressive), I don't find much merit in his position.
The idea that governments are planning to inspect email or other one-to-one sharing for copyrighted material is slightly absurd. Sadly, anti-terrorism efforts are the not only more likely, but actual existing reason for additional government scrutiny. It's a straw man argument.
In addition, even Linux benefits from some of the concepts inherent in copyright law. E.g. if I release Linux code under the GPL, I may be explicitly allowing users full access to the code, as well as the ability to modify and redistribute that code. However, I am still relying on the ability to require those subsequent modifications to be open and redistributed.
And naturally, Engstrom makes no provisions for paying the creators of the "cultural heritage." There won't be much culture left, if the artists cannot survive while making it. Nor did I ever see any indication that The Pirate Bay distributed so much as one thin dime to the artists whose work it helped distribute in violation of copyright law without permission.
I agree that civil rights should be protected. But enforcement of copyright laws is not, and if enforced properly should not, be a civil rights issue.
|
Did Elvis starve to death because of Wikipedia?
Wikipedia Italia was forced to remove reproductions of Renaissance paintings... Were they making Caravaggio work for free?
Is really copyright the only way to pay for creations of the mind?
I don't think so.
