Disproportionate anger.
I would not be surprised that Trump may ask for a modern copyright act designed specifically for today’s Internet-connected world, something that even the Digital Millenium Copyright Act never envisioned.
Piracy is patriotism.
Piracy makes you smart and sexy!
encourage others to do it!
teach them how!
Technology makes it easier to steal an artist’s property, so that makes it ok.
Everyone does it, so that makes it ok.
An honest person wouldn’t steal from someone else, would they?
If you’ve bought the music, you should be able to copy it to whatever media you wish to enjoy it on. Done it forever...
However, if the current copyright stifling continues, tech advancements will slow to a trickle, profiting only the lawyers of said media - and not the consumers.
What is the answer? Smarter minds than I would know better than I would.
Regardless of what you might think of their politics, and I agree that they’re reprehensible, their artistic creations are not created for free, they’re not slaves and they’re entitled to the profits from their work. The internet is a wonderful thing, but one aspect that’s just stupid is that so many seem to think that content should be completely “free.” Anyone with an IQ sufficient to remember to breathe knows that nothing is truly “free.”
The first attempt at copyright.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662
The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.
The Act was originally limited to two years. The provisions as to importation of books, the appointment of licensers, and the number of printers and founders were practically re-enactments of the similar provisions in an order of the Star Chamber of 1637.
Printing presses were not to be set up without notice to the Stationers’ Company. A king’s messenger had power by warrant of the king or a secretary of state to enter and search for unlicensed presses and printing. Severe penalties by fine and imprisonment were denounced against offenders. The act was successively renewed up to 1679.
Hey, what is the name of this website? Too many of you wouldn’t know freedom if it brightened your entire life.
Did any of you even read the article? Or did you just reflexively say to yourself, “People who question 150-year copyrights are dope-smoking libs.”
Copyrights are a unique form of property. If you buy a car, only one person can drive the car at a time. So we have laws to protect your car from conversion by others. Copyrights are a little different, have you noticed? The proper extent of copyright protection is debatable, but why should it be 6x longer than patent protection? Any answers?
You buy some wallpaper, hang it, and then plan to throw a house party. But the artists who sold you the wallpaper didn’t expect you to show it to 25 people all on the same night. You’re cool if they send the marshal to shut down your party?
Artists traditionally make most of their money from live concert performances. Unless an artist is huge, record sale proceeds usually go straight back to the record company. Digital music is best viewed as a free commercial for an artist's live performance, but the artist would derive little benefit even if the industry somehow found a way to monetize the transfer of every single wayward MP3. The record companies would benefit immensely, however - taking us straight back to the good old days of the 70's when they ruled the entertainment world - so they keep trying to do the impossible.
As for smaller artists who are trying to sell digital music on their own web sites, that's wishful thinking. There is just too much free product out there already. Without the aforementioned value-adds, sales of strictly digital music will be minimal at best.
All that ranting and not a single statement about the title of the thread.
Here in America it is a right to be paid for a creation. You anti-American expats might think our system of society is wrong, but we couldn’t care less what some anti-America living in a foreign country thinks.
Stealing is wrong and people have rights to their creations, maybe not in your Panama, but it is in America.