Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I think most people would say that Dickens became a significantly better writer over the course of his life. His later novels are a lot better plotted and written than his early books. But make no mistake about it, Dickens was writing the mass entertainment of his day. His novels, serialised in weekly magazines, were very much written for the commercial market. Like Shakespeare, he was writing as a commercial proposition, not as "art".
|
Both had freedom to borrow plots and ideas from works that came before, and I don't just mean 200 years before, I mean 2 months before. Bill Shakespeare wasn't selling books, he was putting butts in the seats . Pro copyright people always seem to zero in on the money argument and ignore the freedom argument. Those people were borrowing, remixing, outright copying when they made something new and well I think better.
So they want to make money. Money's good, I like money. I also like freedom. I'm not ready to give up freedom because someone's buisness model is being threatened. I don't want to give up the same access to things Dickens and Shakespeare had. I don't want my data searched through at international borders to see if I paid for every song on my ipod. I don't want two kids acting out a scene form their favorite movie taken off of youtube. I don't even want that gods awful Mary Sue fanfiction taken down. I don't want a $150k judgment or any judgment for someone saying hey you need to check out this band and emailing an mp3 to a friend. I don't want people removed from the internet because they've been accused of infringement. I don't want it to be illegal to backup and format shift because some media exec decided to ROT13 a file. And finally I don't want to face a lawsuit when I end with this final quote. I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!