Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBlueSky
Nobody can really disagree with the original intention behind the granting of copyrights (a time limited monopoly to encourage people to make a career in the arts) as being a good thing. It would be rather extreme to argue otherwise. But just WHO is it that is actually gaming the system?
|
If we agree with the original intention of copyright, then how can we justify violating the original intention just because "the other side" commits a wrong? The behavior helps to discredit individuals who do want shorter copyright durations (why adjust copyright at the request of those who won't even honor the adjusted terms?).
The tone of your post is a bit of a strawman, by attributing stances and opinions to me that don't even apply. Do I like where copyright is? Or the fiasco that the DMCA and DRM pose to electronic content markets? No to both. Do I think copyright (as intended) serves a useful purpose? Yes. The goal should be figuring out how to return to that, even if that includes punishing those who have been pushing for laws like the DMCA and copyright extension. But I'd rather vote with my wallet alone, and not give them fodder at the same time for the restrictive DMCA-like laws in the first place.
In the context of this thread, if people believe what Macmillian is doing is wrong for the market, then the idea of simply not buying from them is the right one. Support publishers who are taking the right approach instead (if there are any).