aramoro wrote:So artists can and are already working in the new way that you suggest. So why do we need the change except to force other to follow your model? If your model is so good the free market will bring about the change you're talking about.
Since when did a free market exist?
I think the only time I can remember hearing the term free market, it is on US websites talking about the US (usually the government and why they shouldn't regulate anything). Copyright is probably one of the most far reaching and restrictive forms of government regulation that I can think of.
plooterman wrote:how would you appeal to these people – I don’t think we are going to appeal to most top artists, for the reasons you state.
musicians will still do gigs, big tours will still rake in huge amounts of cash and still be promoted heavily - personally I wouldn’t have problem with that. It's copyright I have a problem with.
I don't think there exists a political party that appeals to everyone. It would be foolish to have "must appeal to everyone" as a goal for any political party. In general, peoples view are incredibly varied, so it would be hard, if not impossible to appeal to everyone.
People will still buy CD's/books etc., even if it is possible to get them for free elsewhere. For example, you can buy books of works by Shakespeare. 'Special edition' CDs and DVDs are released and people buy them, even if they already have it. Some people just like to collect things.
My perspective of the current copyright laws is that they 'steal' from society.
I'm curious to know how you justify this. Not giving you something is stealing from you? That is a very very generous interpretation of theft. Theft is taking something from someone with an intention to permanently deprive them of it, but it has to be theirs in the first place. Someone writes a book it is their book, they own it, they are not stealing from you by not giving it to you for free. That just doesn't make logical sense.
There's a difference between something that is tangible and something that is intangible. If you produce one book, you have one physical book, which is tangible. The words within the book are intangible (as in they can be held within someone's memory and don't have to exist somewhere in the physical world). Copyright exists to control the use of these intangible entities. It is, in effect controlling ideas; continuing your book example, you had the idea to put some words together in a certain order. By showing someone the book, you are sharing these ideas, but then expecting them to not tell anyone about your ideas, unless you say otherwise.
Based on this premise (copyright controls ideas), it seems strange that some ideas can be covered by copyright and some can't. Words put together to form a book are covered by copyright, bricks put together to form a house are not; the builder is paid once for his work, yet a book writer writes something once and expects to (and currently does) get paid for years afterwards.
And considering the current digital age, a large proportion of items covered by copyright can be in a digital format which, with various levels of abstraction in between, is just a string of numbers (well, electrical charges that represent numbers), yet these are covered by copyright, even though math generally isn't.
I remember watching one show (an entertainment one I believe, so take this with a grain of salt), that said that quite a lot of the films that are popular, or often shown around Xmas are ones that are in the public domain, largely because broadcasting companies don't have to pay royalties on them. If the length of copyright just gets longer and longer, rather than shorter, fewer and fewer things will enter the public domain, to be used freely. This restricts the level of culture that people have available to them. With the fast pace society is developing, years later when something enters the public domain, it will be irrelevant. Say someone wrote a book about life 100 years ago, a lot of it wouldn't make sense to me as it would be so far away from my current view of the world, due to how it is being shaped by culture. Say that film about Facebook comes into the public domain in a century, will it still be relevant then? Will people still care? Will Facebook, let along the internet in its present form still exist?
Society today seems to go along with something new for a very short period of time before discarding it and going with something new. That means there is going to be a huge amount of things covered by copyright that hardly anyone cares about any more, because they are more interested in what is currently popular.