Quote:
Originally Posted by perversity
Thieves create their own justifications, and usually find some way to describe their acts other than theft. You can argue all day with these people, but their perception will never change. In their own deluded minds, they have some kind of right to whatever it is they are stealing, and usually hold resentment toward whom they are stealing from. To think that something a person created should just be considered part of the collective of human knowledge is absurd and sounds like communism.
|
This is the typical emotional propaganda used to justify the current draconian status of copyright and patent law.
However, in cases where the basic nature of "property" and the ability to deprive someone of it, as in "theft" are in question, the onus is on the proponents of IP to justify their position, and not the other way around.
You are the one stating that government enforced monopoly power and control is the ONLY way in which the arts and sciences can progress or flourish, yet you have NO quantitative studies which can demonstrate this, only qualitative and subjective "common-sense" arguments. And, as you loudly trumpet the economic benefit to "artists" and their hangers-on, those of the privileged elite, you ignore the multitude of costs to other members of our society. Can you quantitatively answer the question "Does copyright law, as it currently stands,provide a net benefit to society".
So since common-sense has taken center stage here, let me make use of it as well. Because even though I am not advocating communism, you are the one demanding a social contract. A truly just contract then, would necessarily incorporate a delicate balance of interests between society and the artist. If the artists or their appointed representatives (lawyers), however, choose to circumvent the interests of society, and instead collude with special interest to bind society against its will and/or without its knowledge, then any arrangement arrived at in such a fashion is, by definition, unjust.
The chart I posted earlier demonstrates almost certainly a conflict of interest in the way the social contract of copyright has been handled by those in power. Or who here would be willing to bet against the possibility of new copyright legislation being introduced as we approach 2023? I've got 100 bucks on it.
http://techliberation.com/2009/08/06...ey-mouse-curve