| Hiro Antagonist ( @ 2009-05-12 06:15:00 |
| Entry tags: | ethics, humanity, law, politics |
Who ever implied that modern copyright was morally right, or even fair?

"I don't use P2P but for everyone else I say go for it. Rob those bastards blind. Why? One sentence: Steamboat Willie is still under copyright. Think about that for a minute. That man has been worm food (or a Popsicle depending on who you believe) for a half a fricking century and yet his first work, one made when cars were started with a crank and antibiotics were just a crazy dream, is STILL under copyright.
Copyrights were a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED copyright We, The People got a richer Public Domain. Instead they used outright bribery to corrupt our politicians and buy our laws away from us. So I say screw the thieving bastards. Let them rot. They used their money to steal our public domain away from us so if someone wants to steal from the thieves I say more power to them. I just can't be bothered because I honestly think their product is shit and isn't even worth stealing. But frankly expecting us to feel so sorry for those thieving bastards is just pushing it too far. Put the copyrights back to the way they were for over a century and quit robbing our public domain!"
-hairyfeet
Certainly raises a few interesting points. Especially one that's usually forgotten in the US - what is legal is not always right, and what is right is not always legal. Just because you do something does not mean you can demand compensation for it.
Music used to only be something one could get money for by performing live (pre-1800's). It's actually still that way today for artists, just not the parasitic companies that represent them.