When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink
Reply #24 – 2007-10-31 06:27:36
My, my, this topic is also here Quoting myself at some other site...You can not steal what you can’t touch. Stealing involves taking a physical item away from its owner; the owner loses the item forever. A copy, authorized or not, never destroys the original. If you make an illegal photograph of a famous painting, the painting remains intact. We could argue why it is illegal to take a picture on the first place, and who is benefiting. If i show the picture for free outside of the gallery, am i depriving the gallery of funds because the people are no longer going in and paying the fee? Should we defend the gallery owner at the expense of not letting the masses free access to the culture? Those with money will go to the gallery anyway, because its not the same experience. Same occurs with music; if your band is worth it, people will buy the disc and go to their concerts no matter if its available on the net for free, or if they sold their souls to a major label. Current laws in USA are made by and for the benefit of large corporations. The people at large is irrelevant. The original intent of copyright was the opposite of what people think of it today. It was meant to put an end to the unlimited control english printer guilds used to have of written works. By fixing a limit, of 14 years i think, after which, the work had to go into the public domain. This allowed a reasonable time for authors to profit, while at the same time ensured continued access for the masses. Enter the 20th century: corporations changed this and turned it upside down, repeating what it was meant to destroy. This of course has led to the questioning of the need to preserve an "intellectual property" concept at all, with many advocating its complete dissolution. Others are simply asking to change the laws, to allow copies without permission for non-profit uses (Countries like Spain already have this). The shameful behavior of the American cartels (RIAA, MPAA, etc) suing young girls and elderly women, forcing them to pay with all their savings plus half their income for life; rather than set an example as they had hoped, has only fueled a big worldwide anger against them and the system they try so desperate to maintain.