Yet, as anyone who's taken Economics 101 should know, monopolies are hopelessly inefficient - they restrict output leading to high prices for the consumer, whereas a competive market produces more and can only charge around their cost to produce the product. It's hard to be optimistic that big business interests and their lobbyists will ever allow the status quo to change.
Sometimes the monopoly actually helps the little guy, by preventing abuse by larger entities. As an advanced photography student, who has not only spoken to, but assisted pros, copyright is needed by anyone working freelance.
Anyone wanting to work in either the advertising or fashion fields sends out portfolios, to as many art directors as possible. Without a contract (which no one would give to ALL of the portfolios received), what, if not copyright, stands in the way of $COMPANY from taking an artist's work, and using it in an ad campaign, with no compensation for $ARTIST? In this case, copyright law protects the "little guy," and their ability to work as a creative professional.
Furthermore, if I say, decided to expand my artistic horizons, and write a novel, and made it availible online, gratis, what, besides IP laws, would prevent a publisher from printing and selling this work? Yes, I could pay a lawyer to write an air-tight terms of use for my site, but, would have to fight any battles on the basis of contract law, and would be much more likely drawn into a lawsuit which I would lose due to lack of funds, than would occur under copyright laws
Current copyright law allows the copyright holder to allow certain types of distrobution beyond fair-use, as evidenced by the GPL, through liscensing. Thus, one can release their works under rules of their choosing, to better benefit society. Copyrights protect GPL code from the abuse of entities such as Micro$oft, who could easily steal such code without restriction, were it not for copyright.
What I'm trying to say, is that the temporary monopoly given by copyright allows creative professionals, whether artists, or programmers, to avoid becoming prey to "bigger fish." The lack of creative monopoly only serves to hurt those who make creative works, at the benefit of big(ger) business.
However, I do not believe that this monopoly should be anything but very temporary. If any potential heirs of mine want to strike it rich, they had better create something themselves, rather than ride daddy's success. I'd be happy with a 15 year copyright... period., which will allow me to profit off of my work, but prevent most of the abuse of others doing the same. But to eliminate IP laws altogether, would allow megacorps to abuse artists, and likely, programmers.
Legitimate security concerns, yes, but justification for destroying the rights of every person within the country, whether citisen, or foreigner, no. I live in the US, but am more concerned with getting hit by lightening, eaten by a shark, or being killed in an earthquake than a phantom terrorist. Given the latest statistics on gun deaths in America, I'm more likely to either be killed by a thug who needs his crack, or accident with a firearm registered in my name than Osama. Hell, statistically, I'll win the lottery before being offed by a "terrorist." There are reasonable precautions we can take to prevent widespread damage, but, after a point, we are losing not only our rights, but the ability to function safely within society. Yes, airlines should be more careful with screening... But there's no need to believe that since I'm reading a socialist magazine, I'll be any more of a threat to the US government than my single vote for a Green party member, or for that matter, have purchased French Cognac on my credit card, since the Iraq occupation started.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the monopoly actually helps the little guy, by preventing abuse by larger entities. As an advanced photography student, who has not only spoken to, but assisted pros, copyright is needed by anyone working freelance.
Anyone wanting to work in either the advertising or fashion fields sends out portfolios, to as many art directors as possible. Without a contract (which no one would give to ALL of the portfolios received), what, if not copyright, stands in the way of $COMPANY from taking an artist's work, and using it in an ad campaign, with no compensation for $ARTIST? In this case, copyright law protects the "little guy," and their ability to work as a creative professional.
Furthermore, if I say, decided to expand my artistic horizons, and write a novel, and made it availible online, gratis, what, besides IP laws, would prevent a publisher from printing and selling this work? Yes, I could pay a lawyer to write an air-tight terms of use for my site, but, would have to fight any battles on the basis of contract law, and would be much more likely drawn into a lawsuit which I would lose due to lack of funds, than would occur under copyright laws
Current copyright law allows the copyright holder to allow certain types of distrobution beyond fair-use, as evidenced by the GPL, through liscensing. Thus, one can release their works under rules of their choosing, to better benefit society. Copyrights protect GPL code from the abuse of entities such as Micro$oft, who could easily steal such code without restriction, were it not for copyright.
What I'm trying to say, is that the temporary monopoly given by copyright allows creative professionals, whether artists, or programmers, to avoid becoming prey to "bigger fish." The lack of creative monopoly only serves to hurt those who make creative works, at the benefit of big(ger) business.
However, I do not believe that this monopoly should be anything but very temporary. If any potential heirs of mine want to strike it rich, they had better create something themselves, rather than ride daddy's success. I'd be happy with a 15 year copyright... period., which will allow me to profit off of my work, but prevent most of the abuse of others doing the same. But to eliminate IP laws altogether, would allow megacorps to abuse artists, and likely, programmers.
Legitimate security concerns, yes, but justification for destroying the rights of every person within the country, whether citisen, or foreigner, no.
I live in the US, but am more concerned with getting hit by lightening, eaten by a shark, or being killed in an earthquake than a phantom terrorist. Given the latest statistics on gun deaths in America, I'm more likely to either be killed by a thug who needs his crack, or accident with a firearm registered in my name than Osama. Hell, statistically, I'll win the lottery before being offed by a "terrorist."
There are reasonable precautions we can take to prevent widespread damage, but, after a point, we are losing not only our rights, but the ability to function safely within society. Yes, airlines should be more careful with screening... But there's no need to believe that since I'm reading a socialist magazine, I'll be any more of a threat to the US government than my single vote for a Green party member, or for that matter, have purchased French Cognac on my credit card, since the Iraq occupation started.