Four important changes have occurred since copyright laws were first
introduced:

- The cost of distribution has gone down.
- The duration of the government-granted monopoly has gone up.
- The production and ownership of materials covered by these laws, has
shifted towards incorporated businesses, dwarfing that of individuals.
- The legal paradigm has shifted from a limited monopoly for the sake
of the public domain, to "intellectual property".

While the internet is a toy to some, its ability to transfer
information faster and further, has become is an economic necessity to
others. To the less affluent around the world, time and money can be
the difference between life and death. Hygiene information, medical
information, weather forecasts, economic and political networking, are
becoming more accessible to the people who need them the most. This is
largely because of the demand for bandwidth in the first world, and the
effects this has had on the supply industry all over the world.

darwinist wrote:

http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841
by Thomas Babington Macaulay

"...At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his
side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the
bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased...

Sphere wrote:

I tend to agree with you. Copyright in my belief only promotes certain
kinds of creative expression, and then to the detrement of others. For
instance, I find it very sad that copyright effectively vetoes the
creation of a new, populist folk music even as it protects certain
other forms of creative expression.

Yet I do have some reservations about your approach. We have grown up
with creative forms - the professional two hour movie, the album
(especially the concept album), the novel etc.. that have grown out of
copyright law and the production of which are intimately bound up with
it. Without copyright protection these complex and familiar forms could
no longer be produced for money, and so would be produced much less
frequently, if at all.

That isn't to say the folk song, the tall tale, or a any one of a
hundred other forms of creative expression that don't require copyright
to thrive would necessarily be adversely affected. I think on the
contrary that older forms that have been sidelined would simply come
back to fill the gap in our cultural landscape left by the forms that
thrive on copyright.

"darwinist" gmail.com> wrote:

Well, if such movies are not important to you, *don't* pirate. You
won't miss out on anything important, will you?

Justifications of pirates are ridiculous. They denigrate what they
steal. If you think the movie isn't worth the admission price, just
pretent it was never made. Nobody has an obligation to let you set the
price of their own work.

Then don't steal the most popular chart music.

We have nothing to fear from flourishing of copyright-based
corporations. That is, unless you are cheap.

I'm not sure if I agree with your argument. I don't think darwinist is
necessarily attempting to justify a hard-drive filled with hollywood
crap and pop-pap. I think he or she is saying that if it isn't
heartfelt, interesting, challenging or original, why should it be
afforded protection? Especially when the enforcement of that
protection:

a) Damages new and interesting ways of sharing information.

b) Costs taxpayer's money and elected-official's time... and
interferes with everybody else's computer and internet use.

c) Increases the cost of hardware ... to specifically prevent it from
working how the users want.

especially when...

d) The rich and internet savvy can get around all of these things, but
they're not the ones who are hurt by the slowed pace of technology.

AlanS wrote:

When massive public behavior changes, as per in this much more
digitalized culture era,
then the laws are necessarily re-formulated.

The $1.6 BILLION IN STOCK venture for YOUTUBE by GOOGLE is thought to
be
an enormous risk into the murkiness of copyright legalistic phenomena.

While I post copyrighted material in this n.g., I'm not confident in my
understanding the pertaining laws and their enforcement criteria.

What is a civilization if it's not about understanding & observing of
laws & customs?

You whom are dependant for livlihoods upon protecting creative software
& other proprietary original content cannot be rationally
glib/indifferent about these phenomena.

I perceive most everybody realizes the obvious problems.

Mixed preddiction:

Eventually I would expect the laws & customs to ...uh...be firmer than
now and more enforced.

But, hey, the speeding & the other traffic laws are sporadically
enforced while most of us are over the limits so much of the time.

On 13 Oct 2006 07:25:15 -0700, "Tusko" gmail.com> wrote:

Why not? Why should only the self appointed intellectual elite be able
to grant protection? If millions of people want to see, hear or read
it, it, regardless of what someone on a high horse may think about it,
it carries more value than any heartfelt, interesting, challenging or
original material that nobody is willing to see, hear or read.

Don Stockbauer wrote: