Bullshit! It protects the creators of the work otherwise they would not be able to make a living and they would stop. That argument is always said by the non-creators and those that lack any actual talent or ability and thieves.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
If free copying would discourage the creation of new culture in its all forms, we should have seen the effects by now. Pretty much everything is available in the internet for free and if people don't want or care, they don't need to pay for content creators.
What has happened? Instead of stopping the creation of new art, we have seen a huge explosion of new art. There is so much new stuff coming out that people don't have time to enjoy it all even if they wanted. That's also a big reason for artists having difficulties to make money – the competition is really hard. There is just so much possibilities for consumers to spend their money on.
The utilitarian argument for copyright is completely false.
That's because you don't support yourself from what you create. You're argument is the justification thieves use, plain and simple.
When Rent, Equipment, Food, Training, Gas, Clothes and all other things are free only then should content be free.
And you're argument is wrong. The Adult industry used to be a place where the small guy could make a living, due to piracy and tube sites that is no longer the case. Now only the big players have a chance to make any money unless you go into to it with $100K because of all of the free porn on tube sites and filesharing. The only thing one or two people can do is cam as the live interaction can not be pirated.
This has also hit other industries where content is pirated or given away too freely. Sharing and Piracy also takes money out of the economy. I know I had a $100K a year business that got wiped out largely due to piracy and I have a friend that had a small software company go from successful to barely breaking even, which means jobs get cut people lose their jobs.
End of discussion.
This argument doesn't have anything to do with me personally. It stands on its own, whether or not I'm doing something.
No, it doesn't. There is more money than ever available for all kinds of content and culture stuff.
Availability of free copies might make it harder for certain businesses to run profitably, but that is not an argument for the copyright law. It's just bad business practice, and like in any other industry, if you do bad business, you don't make any profit and that's your fault.
You are not entitled to any of this.
The whole economy works much better when inefficient companies go out of business and let better companies take their place.
Copyright law is biased towards large corporations, BUT, there have been a number of high profile cases where copyright law was successfully used to protect an individual freelancer. The case I am thinking of was where a news corporation ripped off a photographer's image for their story.
Yes, innovation does come from copying and modifying, but original content creators do need protection.
I'm in agreement with @nspart.
That's all? That's not much when compared the war against culture that the copyright mafia is waging. People are thrown into jail for sharing a few songs or a movie online. There is massive assault on privacy when different authorities are spying people for how they use internet.
Copyright has huge cost on the society. And what we get in exchange? A few freelancers can prevent a news site using their photos in the news? It's really bad deal from the perspective of a normal citizen.
What you need to do is to look at the bigger picture. What are the costs and benefits of copyright law. You'll see pretty quickly that costs outweight benefits without a doubt. Very few people benefit from it while most of the society and culture suffers.
@samupaha I get where you are coming from, that is where I prefaced my comment, saying that copyright law is biased towards large corporations with deep pockets.
But, no, that is not all. There are many other smaller cases, some that I know of personally where friends used said laws to protect their work. Your comment leads me to believe that you do not make a living from your creative work.
Protection is needed, but not the biased extremes the media corporations are pushing.
I don't think you understand this. You look this only from the perspective of small scale freelancers and forget everybody else.
I look at this from the perspective of the whole society. We just don't need copyright, it creates much more harm than good for the whole society.