| >It's a sad world we live in when creators are upset that their creation is shared. I don't think that is a fair description of what I have a problem with. >Let's also not forget that the need to commercialize creative content using copyright can also negatively influence those works themselves as what is profitable under this scheme is not neccesarily what is best. This is a huge problem, though it's not really related to copyright. I think a more accurate statement, using your words, would be something like: "Let's also not forget that the commercialization of creative content can also negatively influence those works themselves as what is profitable under this scheme is not necessarily what is best." HUGE problem. The content you see on YouTube today is determined, in large part, by what advertisers are and are not willing to have their brands associated with. Huge, huge, problem. Particularly since viewers are typically unaware of it. > Does it? I'm certainly not an expert of the matter but AFAII the constitution only ALLOWS the government to create laws like copyright but does not require it. I believe that it does. Abolishing copyright would be a 'taking' of intellectual property, and would violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. |