|
|
|
|
|
by gergles
5209 days ago
|
|
No, no, no, no, no, no. First off, your analogy should be "if there was a digital way to replicate a bottle of grey goose without doing anything to the bottle at the liquor store", but that notwithstanding: The things that "content creators" make are things from my culture. They are things taken out of society and ideas that everyone contributes to. (e.g. Disney exploiting the public domain, sampling, etc.) The fact that "content creators" think they can have a monopoly on pieces of culture (effectively) forever is what's wrong, not these ludicrous analogies to stealing physical things. Copyright was intended to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Making it impossible to remix, adapt, and contribute to the shared culture by locking everything up in infinitely-long copyright periods is doing the exact opposite of what was intended. |
|
I do agree with your sentiment that IP law is inherently stifling and increasing futile, i.e. Apple v Android.
However, I fail to see the difference between someone who produces an item for sale in the form of something that can be captured in bits of data vs a more tangible object. Aren't both parties entitled to the ability to monetize(if they so desire) on the time and effort put into creation of their final product?