>Content will become scarce indeed if no one pays for it
An common, but unproven claim, which also confuses content creation
with distribution. It's the monopoly over the latter that I and many others
object to. We are currently seeing the beginning of an era where sharing and
remixing is giving rise to an unprecedented number of new art and culture. It
has never been easier to produce content.
>It is a time-limited monopoly designed to promote progress in science and arts.
Though I'm from Europe, I'm quite familiar with that phrase, and I don't buy it.
The problem with it is that it's from a time where the copyright industry was, to
a certain degree, necessary for the dissemination of content. The founding fathers
could have never even anticipated something like the Internet and technological
advancements like BitTorrent and other file-sharing services, which pretty much
invalidate a lot of the assumptions made when the constitution was written.
Also, as far as I remember, copyright is merely something congress is allowed to
make laws about, not a constitutionally granted right.
Thomas Jefferson was strongly against the idea of intellectual property. http://bit.ly/JJa8Va
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
You seem to have your mind made up and no amount of rational and logic thought will change that. So I will simply wish you good luck in life. I hope one day you create something that everybody wants but you end up pennyless because everyone just shared it for free. Good day.
An common, but unproven claim, which also confuses content creation with distribution. It's the monopoly over the latter that I and many others object to. We are currently seeing the beginning of an era where sharing and remixing is giving rise to an unprecedented number of new art and culture. It has never been easier to produce content.
>It is a time-limited monopoly designed to promote progress in science and arts.
Though I'm from Europe, I'm quite familiar with that phrase, and I don't buy it. The problem with it is that it's from a time where the copyright industry was, to a certain degree, necessary for the dissemination of content. The founding fathers could have never even anticipated something like the Internet and technological advancements like BitTorrent and other file-sharing services, which pretty much invalidate a lot of the assumptions made when the constitution was written.
Also, as far as I remember, copyright is merely something congress is allowed to make laws about, not a constitutionally granted right.