said by sharkbyte:
Copyright was created in response to publishers who thought they could do exactly this -
"prohibit the sharing of information or art"
because then THEY COULD. The controlled the printing presses and the binderies and the ships that carried the product. They controled the entire chain from printing to distribution. THIS IS WHY COPYRIGHT WAS CREATED. It was to prevent publishers from commandeering the work of others and locking it away in their own (for profit) works. Copyright protected the authors from he publishers, it protected "the creative commons" by ensuring NOTHING was "protected" unless the work was shared, in full, with the crown. It also promised severe punishment for publishers who DIDN'T share their works, in full, with the crown. That today many of these ideal have been sold out to corporate interests does not make the laws just, ethical, nor even enforceable.
I am convinced absolutely anyone who uses the word "theft" in this argument is somewhat clueless.
Regards
Shark...
Who is clueless are those who believe the property of someone's creation shouldn't be controlled by the creator or whoever he designates, even if only for a limited time. Without copyright and patent protections, all motivation is removed from creation...without the profits of creation...there is no means for continued creation.
Stealing music 2 weeks before an album is released is a far cry from the anti-Bono arguement, that copyright protections are simply too long.
The music being stolen is for the most part newer music...newer than the 14 years the framers of the Constitution like Jefferson requested.
Again...these arguments aren't to justify breaking old copyrights like Mickey Mouse or some other work that has become so prevalent that it can be argued that it has become part of the public domain...this is ONLY about getting something for nothing.
You can't argue public domain for an album that hasn't even been released.
