|
|
|
|
|
|
by uriel
5362 days ago
|
|
|
Copyright is a (supposedly temporary) government granted monopoly. It is very often used for censorship, and its origins are in the censorship system (ie., requirement for publishers to be licensed by the king) of the middle ages. Authors that publish their works have no god-given right to control how others use their work, if I'm an sculptor and I sell an sculpture, whoever buys it can do whatever the hell wants with it, they can smash it, put it in their toilet, or whatever else. The point of copyright was supposedly to encourage the creation of art, but it clearly has been stifling both the creation and enjoyment of art for a long time now. |
|
|
As I am sure most here would agree, any complex system has both positive and negative effects. I will leave it to others to describe the negative effects of patent and copyright. For me, one of the positive effects of copyright is how it allows a personal innate skill and drive to translate directly into social and economic mobility. It's how a poor boy from Gary, Indiana becomes Michael Jackson.
Now, some people may say - who cares about Michael Jackson - but we are all human: there are thousands of people who have drawn inspiration from the progress of others - progress in arts and business - to better themselves and their communities.
Why should I sacrifice all the good of a system that allows that? In my world view, the total disrespect for individual creative rights is that huge step back to a Royalist world of serfdom.
Most importantly: it doesn't have to be either/or. Systems that respect both the artist and the consumer can exist. I find it hard to understand why asking to meet in the middle is asking for too much.
Not only does that not make sense to me, the denying of a right to meet in the middle feels very much to me, as a creative person, that I am simply being forced to trade one overlord for another.