People have been breaking copyright law for ages.
The only thing that has changed is that it's easier to break copyright law.
It's a trade-off really. As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law.
The argument against this law is that it's better to have content be easier to create and distribute, and worth the trade-off.
As you make content easier to create and distribute, you will inevitably make it easier to break copyright law.
You also make copyright law itself less necessary. Its primary purpose is not to protect authors and creators, but rather to incentivize distributors. That's where all the cost and risk was when copyright originated. Now that distribution costs have dropped to nearly nothing, there is little necessity for copyright.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors.
>I've never seen anyone claim that copyright was to protect distributors.
Then I guess you have not been in this discussion for very long, or never paid attention. The fact is, copyright was never meant for creators. It was invented by distributors for distributors. The first copyright law was a censorship law to limit the amount of books printed when the printing press was was getting widely available in England that gave a total monopoly on publishing to a guild of publishers, without even attributing a book to the original author, but instead to the guild member who registered the book, attaining its newly invented "copyright".
You know what's the funniest thing about this? The content industry hails this as a stepping stone for authors and their rights, and what's worse, the public believes them. It's a lie, simple as that. Authors never asked for copyright. There was no collective push to stop the copying of their works. On the contrary, they wanted their works to be read.
The internet has made copyright obsolete. Moreso, it has made it harmful, and it needs to go away. The internet's here to stay. Copyright, by any means, isn't.
Everyone should read this post, the origins of copyright are very enlightening when trying to understand the insane system we have now.
Intellectual property is system of monopolies inherently incompatible with a competitive, creative and innovative free market, how the IP-industry managed to turn this argument around in the minds of most people is truly scary.
The copyright make sense only in connection with distribution. Without the very act of distribution (like exhibiting or selling of the work), the copyright doesn't make sense as nobody would know the content of the work. You can create or invent without any risk of copyright infringement (and thus without any need for the notion of copyright) as long as you don't attempt the distribution.
While an interesting analysis, I think it should be pointed out this is a nonstandard opinion. I don't have a problem with nonstandard opinions, I have a fine collection of them myself, I only object when people try to claim them as the mainstream interpretation. You ought to know when you've left the mainstream.
The mainstream interpretation most certain is that copyright is to protect creators, not distributors.
> The mainstream interpretation most certain is that copyright is to protect creators, not distributors.
That is certainly the idealized, simplified narrative that most everyone will have been taught these days, but in terms of how copyright actually came about, way back when, it is largely a case of post-hoc rationalization. Hence the link: majority opinion doesn't change reality, only its perception.
If distribution cost were high and creation cost insignificant, copyright would not be needed -- the creator can handle competition from other distributors of his creation because they have to cover the same costs he does. It's only when creation cost is significant relative to distribution cost that the creator cannot compete with other distributors. Digital distribution is the extreme case of this: the creator must cover the cost of creation, while his competitors have almost no costs to cover.
If distribution cost were high and creation cost insignificant, copyright would not be needed -- the creator can handle competition from other distributors...
While this is probably true, it certainly doesn't mean that distributors want such competition. They want a competitive advantage, and it's much cheaper to get such an advantage by picking popular authors than having a technological arms race or price war with other distributors. Copyright was introduced to provide an artificial monopoly for distributors.
>It's only when creation cost is significant relative to distribution cost that the creator cannot compete with other distributors. Digital distribution is the extreme case of this: the creator must cover the cost of creation, while his competitors have almost no costs to cover.
nobody forces the creator to create [or distribute the work]. Keep it in/to yourself. Nope, somehow "creators" feel that the society is owing them the copyright protection.
>Of course not. We just want to encourage them to do so.
well, i doubt that Coens would stop creating if this copyright/IP system didn't exist. What i'm sure about is that there wouldn't be those crappy patents with my name on them. You get what you encourage. Enjoy.
The argument against this law is that it's better to have content be easier to create and distribute, and worth the trade-off.