| There are people against copyright in principle though a very small number of people. Mainly what I see is similar to using amendments to "poison" legislation. The abuse at the core of the current crazy USA rules (and then the USA forcing other countries to adopt USA rules) has poisoned the merits of copyright so much that many people find the current copyright reality abhorrent. Now it also isn't the greatest comparison as the "poison" amendments are specifically created to exploit voting blocks to have to support the amendment that then creates legislation that can't gain enough votes to pass. And the copyright law has been created by politicians giving companies that pay them lots of money legislation they want. There was no intent to create an unpalatable system so that people would revolt and demand change. So far it hasn't been so unpalatable as to cause the whole thing to collapse under the weight of poisonous amendments. And in fact with TPP we likely to see the USA again forcing new poisonous provisions onto our vassal states. But what has happened is those poisonous provision have created a large number of people that are extremely unhappy with the current state of copyright. They just so far have been readily outmaneuvered over and over by the copyright cartel folks (as is happening with TPP, most likely, yet again). It seems we might be getting close to a tipping point, but maybe not. But in any event I think the anti-copyright talk is much more anti-the-poisonous-copyright-extentions-that-have-nearly-no-economic-justification. I feel that way myself. While at the same time believing sensible copyright rules (the USA constitution seems about right in spirit) are wise. Something close to the years we originally had instead of all the extensions that have been added seems reasonable to me. I'm sure not to others. I feel very strongly the current rules are vastly too restrictive on moving work to the public domain and it is doing great damage to our economy as things stand now. |