[Retric]

It's not about what I do, it's about what I get for giving them a control over intellectual property. Patents are a well studied tradeoff, but so is any form of legaly protected monopoly.

Whenever people give up power without gaining enough you can expect a backlash. Given the option I would vote to end copyright and I am not alone. Everything after that point is a compromise on my part, especially when Shakesphere had zero copyright protection. Just picture the music that rises to the top without music promoters.

[s73ver]

Once again, I'm still not seeing how this actually affects you. I'm not seeing how this stops you from creating something new. I don't, and no one else should care about what other companies do with their creations.

You talk about "giving up power", but be honest: what power should you have over someone else's creation? Why should you get to use their creation, or why should you get to tell them how to use it?

"Just picture the music that rises to the top without music promoters."

It would be exactly the same, because music promoters would still exist. The existence or non existence of copyright is not going to change what's popular. And the existence of copyright does absolutely nothing to stop you from trying to make something new.

[Retric]

> I'm still not seeing how this actually affects you.

I stopped writing a book that happened to be overly close to another book someone else published. I had not read it when I started, but reading the second book I could no longer really separate the ideas. Now, sure plenty of people keep going in that situation but technically it does not take much to cross into derivative works. It's also why may (but far from all) writers stop reading others works.