It took a civil war for that to happen with slavery, and even now some people still are trying to revise history regarding that. Not that it shouldn't happen with copyright - it needs to happen, if only because imaginary property is not a sustainable export - I am just not as optimistic that it will. On the whole, people are easily misled by the rhetoric of copyright proponents into believing rights exist that do not, while ignoring rights that actually do.
On relatively minor issues, they can serve as a way to tell some other group generally how the people signing it feel. However, you are right that I suspect no online petition has ever made anyone do something they did not want to.
I was the only person to know the password to my old computer's login - no longer have any idea what it was. I figure I will just reformat it or bypass the login if I have a need to use it.
However, if it was encrypted, I would currently have a legal timebomb sitting on my desk. This is not right and is clearly unconstitutional. Dressing up the matter does not change that.
We're basically allowed guns from the 19th century. The idea of fighting the government via the second amendment died long ago, when anything more powerful than a high-caliber hunting rifle was banned. No one sane is going to take on anything with a semi-automatic rifle. I guess, though, we're all walking around with MP44s in the minds of Europeans.
A search warrant does not require participation of the defendant. Neither would them cracking the encryption. It crossed the line into a constitutional violation when you begin to threaten people for not aiding their own prosecution: such as requiring someone to disclose the location of incriminating documents, or giving up passwords to encryption keys.
This is little different than demanding that someone accused of a murder disclose the location of the body, or be held in contempt of court: you cannot win either way. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, not a "legitimate legal process." Even were it considered such by the legal system - which it is not - it would still be unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights in need of correction.
You might consider it reasonable, but I think the fact it is possible to easily forget something like a password makes it unreasonable even if there were any sound arguments for violating the 5th.
As someone who is bisexual, I think claiming "it is not a choice" is a little demeaning. It gives weight to people calling it a psychological problem, and I simply don't think it is true. It also implies some kind of shame: you wouldn't choose this, if you had the option. I don't know about other people, but I don't think I would change if given the option.
Further, It has been shown many times that no one is purely straight or gay, although I think the best argument to that end is not statistical, but the metaphysical argument of Ron White to the effect. I think gay is just as much a choice as straight, and they both, strictly speaking, are.
I am more inclined to think it is a preference (strong as it may be) based on psychological background and maybe a bit of physical disposition. Sexual preference, for everyone, is still a choice on some level - and I don't think that it is should be an argument against picking choices not tolerated by the religious right, nor do I think claiming it isn't a choice makes gays look better.
Extremists - yes. Knowledgeable voters more likely to choose a good candidate than a random number generator - also yes.
I've heard too many stories about pre-vote drinking to take the idea of compulsory voting seriously. That and the fact that the Australian government seems to be one of the most corrupt and extreme western democracies, with their constant efforts at censorship. No, the solution to political problems has to not be "drown out" anyone with noise, but rather make it so the outcome is not extreme OR random.
They aren't all horrible - just mostly. I have a great respect for Anthropology, which while being sort of a social science, tends to hold to actual scientific standards more than made up fields like sociology (the non-rigorous version) or psychology (naming and categorizing personal problems). Even more so, considering it is usually on the firing line by creationists for constantly figuring out how things actually happened in humanity's evolution.
I can tolerate most of the other fields, with the exception of economics. Economics is not simply nonsense, it is nonsense which poses a direct danger to humanity, by acting as if social systems are as simple as garbage in, garbage out. Almost every field of economics is consistently shown to be unable to make usable predictions, and make suggestions which result in unintended consequences, yet they still are allowed to influence politics without people even considering it strange. Let "social science" waste university money, but I say we need to be wary of people who habitually claim wealth inequality and deregulation are good things...
What goes around, comes around. Considering this is basically the norm for student essays, it was only a matter of time until the students became the professors, and the professors fully saturated the journal editorial boards. It is just a promotion of the status quo to a level it is visibly a bad thing, really.
This sound a lot like some of the suggestions posted here for what the US needs to do, so I think he might have not just saved Japan, but saved the whole world! If economists working for world governments knew as much as the libertarians on slashdot, think of what the world would be like!
Because in the first case, he is in a very good position to do exactly what he is claiming, indeed it is not new at all in politics. Also, he is basically offering a bribe (in reverse), a crime in itself. In the second, I doubt most people who be really threatened by that statement, as it simply doesn't happen often. If there was reason to believe it might be dangerous, maybe investigating would be alright.
However, people saying "no other options have worked to keep the government working as intended, we are going to end up having to revolt" is not the same as "if you don't support the policies I like, I will take up arms and start murdering people" in the minds of even the most inept. If you think what is typically posted to the effect equals what you wrote, you need psychological help.
Further, don't try to weasel out. You said you wanted them on a watch list, not investigated. There is a huge difference (not that either are good). Watch lists are the new way to keep people who say anything unpleasant afraid. Even sending the FBI to ask them questions would be more honest than marking them an Enemy of the People.
Your first thought when choosing "using your own judgment" is the guy who no matter how you apologize, is not much different than the other options in thinking he knows best, and indeed has been around and part of the same political system just as long as most of the other candidates. If you truly think he is some kind of alternative, you need to actually do some research. Which I suspect you didn't, or you would give me more than a contrived excuse why some restrictions on freedom are good if they were supported by a guy you like, which is what your post comes across as.
I understand your sentiment, but being a party-line voter for the third party is pretty pointless unless you're going to actually pick a better candidate. Third parties will never be elected in the United States. The election system does not allow it. So, when you vote third party, what you actually do is send a message to the two real parties what you like. Voting for Nader sends exactly the opposite message I want sent.
So who do you propose we do vote for? Mr. 18th Century Economist? He seems to be the only one not beholden to the system, yet he has enough problems of his own to make me wonder which is worse.
It's easy to condemn others, but what have YOU done? Cast a vote in a primary? I doubt even that.
"We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers."
So what would you prefer? The politicians decide when to investigate themselves? It obviously isn't happening. I kind of consider taking public office such as Dodd did as putting someone in a higher bracket of scrutiny. If we can't hold corrupt politicians to some standards, we'll end up just like the soviet bloc countries. Oh, wait, many of them are becoming LESS corrupt...
Ralph Nader? The guy who created mandatory seatbelt laws at the behest of the insurance companies, while claiming it was in the public good (because Nader knows best)? He's among the worst of the worst.
At least a protest vote for libertarians is still a protest vote, even if they are insane. A protest vote for Nader is like shopping at Sams Club because you think Walmart behaves badly.
This "bullet box" rhetoric needs to end. The people who mod it up should be ashamed of themselves, and the people who post it ought to be on government watch lists.
So, people saying what you don't like needs to put people on secret lists so they can be abused by the government while going about their legal business. Gotcha. I think I can see why you're not OK with the original idea.
How about this: you don't deserve the freedom to post what you just did, and I think you need to be put on a list for conspiring to commit treason (by advocating violation of the constitution). If you can start deciding what is allowed, so can I. See how it works? Grow a brain.
It already is. Most people just don't realize that private corporations can also remove freedom. It seems this only registers on the radar of most Americans when those corporations start to influence the government in the open.
How might we falsify that statement? Or indeed, find any proof supporting it. It sounds to me more like a statement of ideology than a fact. Public policy shouldn't be based on ideology.
Actually, I do. The Government grants me that right. It's called Copyright.:)
And I am advocating its abolition, because it is founded purely in emotional appeals made by an industry which wants to remove the rights of the public, and not on logical arguments. Controlling information is in direct conflict with freedom to communicate - which we need to understand is the modern form of free speech. The communication between two willing parties should not be interfered with in any situation.
This might result in fewer games or games with less polish/depth due to a lack of time/energy
I am sure it would. I think the trade-off is reasonable, though. A smaller percentage of computer games a year, for economic and social good. Anyway - it's kind of a comparative matter. The corporately-produced games of 10 years ago barely compare to many of the open games we have. In time, we'd be right back to where we are, but without the sinister underlying system of copyright. I'd also argue that with less corporate games, there would be more interest in creating open ones. Supply and demand; where there's a will, there's a way; etc.
Basically, I just see your ideal as nice, but hopelessly idealistic.
I honestly do not see how you can say that the status quo up until a few hundred years ago is "hopelessly idealistic." Copyright was hopelessly idealistic: it was supposed to get rid of the patron model. Do I need to tell you how that worked out? I hope not.
I already have a lot of paid/FOSS software and know of a lot of legal places to obtain music/shows/etc that are also given away for free, so I'm OK. You might consider me a fool for taking these steps when it's so easy to get pirated content of the highest quality (and you wouldn't be the only one), but I believe such measures have side benefits as well, plus it's the only way I remain morally at peace.
It depends on the case. I think if a company is freely offering their shows (like with hulu), then you probably should watch them there and let them have their advertising, if you intend to watch them at all. Same goes for trying to use open source over proprietary-pirated. Same goes for donating to people who use the CC. It's a matter of rewarding good behavior (freely offering, not being copyright-trolling scumbags). Further, I stand by the idea that piracy helps sell a product, so I do not advocate pirating the materials of the worse companies out there: it can only help them.
Wanting to abolish copyright does not mean I want everyone to donate their efforts and then go to the drum circle afterwards and sing Kumbaya: it means I see copyright specifically, and the idea that information and ideas are something you can lay a legal claim on, as flawed and immoral concepts. I think if people do a good job, they can make money and support themselves without copyright as well as with it. Of course, like with games (and possibilities movies), there will be downsides... but I think that is a trade-off that needs made. A country cannot survive forever by creating "intellectual property," nor should it.
Because you have no right to control it. It's pretty simple. If I say something stupid, it's your right to tell others I said it. If I say something smart, it's your right to repeat it. If I write something smart, it's your right to repeat it. So on. Piracy is not immoral. Stealing art out of the public domain, which is largely unquestioned by supporters of copyright like you, is. Manipulating markets, preventing independent artists for gaining traction, censoring communication mediums, etc., is immoral. Yet we can now see these things are the end result of copyright. The right to control information is not one society needs to be handing out. It doesn't matter if you agree with that or not. Your ability to do so is given to you by the government, which we all have a say in - if you want to keep claiming rights you don't have... that's your problem. As I see it, that concept got us in a bad position and now it needs to go away once and for all. No amount of you claiming I am a crackpot can change that.
As for other business models - we already have them. If you're a musician, go perform your music. If you are an artist, draw/paint on commission. If you are a programmer, program specific things for people who need them. If you are a writer, it might be a little more complicated, but the current system doesn't do much for writers, anyway. Basically - do what was done for centuries before the copyright industry was created. The internet opens up even more options, like feasible donation systems, advertizing, open source, etc.. There is no shortage of alternatives. The problem is that people cling to the status quo, because they are told to do so by those making bundles on it at their expense.
As it stands, you will only make enough to live on creating copyrighted material in a very narrow set of fields, like software. Even then, you're only really depending on copyright if you work for a company selling end-user software. Web development, lower level system development, control software for machinery, etc., all will be totally unchanged by if copyright exists or not. The fact is that outside of software, you will not survive on your "right" to control information unless you sell it to a cartel. You will not survive on music unless you are chosen by the RIAA to become super-rich, which is not really a practical outcome.
So to directly answer your last question(?): it's not your information, it isn't your right to control it, and it isn't our duty to find a way for you to profit off of it. Hope that makes my position clear.
So you're saying, because I don't think people should make money off it (by the current model), my position is unrealistic... because this is the information age? That is like claiming steam should have been taxed in the industrial age, because otherwise, governments would go broke. Obviously, you think people have a right to control information. I do not. I think that is what got us into all these problems with patents and copyright trolling in the first place. As long as people respect a "right" to control information, information will be limited. The "information age" happened not because information was controlled, but because, for a time, it wasn't.
That you totally disregard everything I said and call me a crackpot and my positions fantasy I think says far more about you than it does me. The fact you are completely unable to see how the current situation is flawed (beyond pointing out the symptoms) and that it could be made better is your problem, not mine. The fact is, there is growing discontent about this state of affairs. Being a person holding this stance, I have seen almost startling growth in the number of people totally rejecting copyright as an idea. It is still a small number, but like happened once before, we might yet see a total rejection of this kind of made-up property by the masses. You can complain about crackpots and fantasy when you are in the minority.
Information was always considered free. Specific reproductions were not, because of the extreme cost in making them. It was about the physical objects, not the content. Information that did not need a physical medium to be communicated, such as musical lyrics, was almost universally free up until the 19th century.
It's funny you should mention "romantic," because the idea that artists have some sort of claim to control their works was an idea of the Romantics. It had not existed previously at any point I am aware of in history. The Romantics believed creation of art was a divine act (as in divine inspiration) which entitled the artist to profit from it and control it. Sadly, the Romantics were horribly wrong about that, as they were about many other things, like science. I just wish people would realize they were wrong and stop repeating the meme simply because it benefits a modern industry to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
It took a civil war for that to happen with slavery, and even now some people still are trying to revise history regarding that. Not that it shouldn't happen with copyright - it needs to happen, if only because imaginary property is not a sustainable export - I am just not as optimistic that it will. On the whole, people are easily misled by the rhetoric of copyright proponents into believing rights exist that do not, while ignoring rights that actually do.
Everyone is biased. Most news sources were biased pro-SOPA. Your point?
Because a place of higher education blocking sites for political reasons is identical to McDonalds blocking your twitter, right?
On relatively minor issues, they can serve as a way to tell some other group generally how the people signing it feel. However, you are right that I suspect no online petition has ever made anyone do something they did not want to.
I was the only person to know the password to my old computer's login - no longer have any idea what it was. I figure I will just reformat it or bypass the login if I have a need to use it.
However, if it was encrypted, I would currently have a legal timebomb sitting on my desk. This is not right and is clearly unconstitutional. Dressing up the matter does not change that.
We're basically allowed guns from the 19th century. The idea of fighting the government via the second amendment died long ago, when anything more powerful than a high-caliber hunting rifle was banned. No one sane is going to take on anything with a semi-automatic rifle. I guess, though, we're all walking around with MP44s in the minds of Europeans.
A search warrant does not require participation of the defendant. Neither would them cracking the encryption. It crossed the line into a constitutional violation when you begin to threaten people for not aiding their own prosecution: such as requiring someone to disclose the location of incriminating documents, or giving up passwords to encryption keys.
This is little different than demanding that someone accused of a murder disclose the location of the body, or be held in contempt of court: you cannot win either way. Therefore, it is unconstitutional, not a "legitimate legal process." Even were it considered such by the legal system - which it is not - it would still be unconstitutional and a violation of civil rights in need of correction.
You might consider it reasonable, but I think the fact it is possible to easily forget something like a password makes it unreasonable even if there were any sound arguments for violating the 5th.
As someone who is bisexual, I think claiming "it is not a choice" is a little demeaning. It gives weight to people calling it a psychological problem, and I simply don't think it is true. It also implies some kind of shame: you wouldn't choose this, if you had the option. I don't know about other people, but I don't think I would change if given the option.
Further, It has been shown many times that no one is purely straight or gay, although I think the best argument to that end is not statistical, but the metaphysical argument of Ron White to the effect. I think gay is just as much a choice as straight, and they both, strictly speaking, are.
I am more inclined to think it is a preference (strong as it may be) based on psychological background and maybe a bit of physical disposition. Sexual preference, for everyone, is still a choice on some level - and I don't think that it is should be an argument against picking choices not tolerated by the religious right, nor do I think claiming it isn't a choice makes gays look better.
Extremists - yes. Knowledgeable voters more likely to choose a good candidate than a random number generator - also yes.
I've heard too many stories about pre-vote drinking to take the idea of compulsory voting seriously. That and the fact that the Australian government seems to be one of the most corrupt and extreme western democracies, with their constant efforts at censorship. No, the solution to political problems has to not be "drown out" anyone with noise, but rather make it so the outcome is not extreme OR random.
They aren't all horrible - just mostly. I have a great respect for Anthropology, which while being sort of a social science, tends to hold to actual scientific standards more than made up fields like sociology (the non-rigorous version) or psychology (naming and categorizing personal problems). Even more so, considering it is usually on the firing line by creationists for constantly figuring out how things actually happened in humanity's evolution.
I can tolerate most of the other fields, with the exception of economics. Economics is not simply nonsense, it is nonsense which poses a direct danger to humanity, by acting as if social systems are as simple as garbage in, garbage out. Almost every field of economics is consistently shown to be unable to make usable predictions, and make suggestions which result in unintended consequences, yet they still are allowed to influence politics without people even considering it strange. Let "social science" waste university money, but I say we need to be wary of people who habitually claim wealth inequality and deregulation are good things...
What goes around, comes around. Considering this is basically the norm for student essays, it was only a matter of time until the students became the professors, and the professors fully saturated the journal editorial boards. It is just a promotion of the status quo to a level it is visibly a bad thing, really.
This sound a lot like some of the suggestions posted here for what the US needs to do, so I think he might have not just saved Japan, but saved the whole world! If economists working for world governments knew as much as the libertarians on slashdot, think of what the world would be like!
Because in the first case, he is in a very good position to do exactly what he is claiming, indeed it is not new at all in politics. Also, he is basically offering a bribe (in reverse), a crime in itself. In the second, I doubt most people who be really threatened by that statement, as it simply doesn't happen often. If there was reason to believe it might be dangerous, maybe investigating would be alright.
However, people saying "no other options have worked to keep the government working as intended, we are going to end up having to revolt" is not the same as "if you don't support the policies I like, I will take up arms and start murdering people" in the minds of even the most inept. If you think what is typically posted to the effect equals what you wrote, you need psychological help.
Further, don't try to weasel out. You said you wanted them on a watch list, not investigated. There is a huge difference (not that either are good). Watch lists are the new way to keep people who say anything unpleasant afraid. Even sending the FBI to ask them questions would be more honest than marking them an Enemy of the People.
Your first thought when choosing "using your own judgment" is the guy who no matter how you apologize, is not much different than the other options in thinking he knows best, and indeed has been around and part of the same political system just as long as most of the other candidates. If you truly think he is some kind of alternative, you need to actually do some research. Which I suspect you didn't, or you would give me more than a contrived excuse why some restrictions on freedom are good if they were supported by a guy you like, which is what your post comes across as.
I understand your sentiment, but being a party-line voter for the third party is pretty pointless unless you're going to actually pick a better candidate. Third parties will never be elected in the United States. The election system does not allow it. So, when you vote third party, what you actually do is send a message to the two real parties what you like. Voting for Nader sends exactly the opposite message I want sent.
So who do you propose we do vote for? Mr. 18th Century Economist? He seems to be the only one not beholden to the system, yet he has enough problems of his own to make me wonder which is worse.
It's easy to condemn others, but what have YOU done? Cast a vote in a primary? I doubt even that.
"We don't want a society where the loudest bunch of shrieking zealots can pressure a criminal investigation by the mere weight of numbers."
So what would you prefer? The politicians decide when to investigate themselves? It obviously isn't happening. I kind of consider taking public office such as Dodd did as putting someone in a higher bracket of scrutiny. If we can't hold corrupt politicians to some standards, we'll end up just like the soviet bloc countries. Oh, wait, many of them are becoming LESS corrupt...
Ralph Nader? The guy who created mandatory seatbelt laws at the behest of the insurance companies, while claiming it was in the public good (because Nader knows best)? He's among the worst of the worst.
At least a protest vote for libertarians is still a protest vote, even if they are insane. A protest vote for Nader is like shopping at Sams Club because you think Walmart behaves badly.
So, people saying what you don't like needs to put people on secret lists so they can be abused by the government while going about their legal business. Gotcha. I think I can see why you're not OK with the original idea.
How about this: you don't deserve the freedom to post what you just did, and I think you need to be put on a list for conspiring to commit treason (by advocating violation of the constitution). If you can start deciding what is allowed, so can I. See how it works? Grow a brain.
It already is. Most people just don't realize that private corporations can also remove freedom. It seems this only registers on the radar of most Americans when those corporations start to influence the government in the open.
How might we falsify that statement? Or indeed, find any proof supporting it. It sounds to me more like a statement of ideology than a fact. Public policy shouldn't be based on ideology.
There's always piracy. Funny how that's free and always has all the content, isn't it?
And I am advocating its abolition, because it is founded purely in emotional appeals made by an industry which wants to remove the rights of the public, and not on logical arguments. Controlling information is in direct conflict with freedom to communicate - which we need to understand is the modern form of free speech. The communication between two willing parties should not be interfered with in any situation.
I am sure it would. I think the trade-off is reasonable, though. A smaller percentage of computer games a year, for economic and social good. Anyway - it's kind of a comparative matter. The corporately-produced games of 10 years ago barely compare to many of the open games we have. In time, we'd be right back to where we are, but without the sinister underlying system of copyright. I'd also argue that with less corporate games, there would be more interest in creating open ones. Supply and demand; where there's a will, there's a way; etc.
I honestly do not see how you can say that the status quo up until a few hundred years ago is "hopelessly idealistic." Copyright was hopelessly idealistic: it was supposed to get rid of the patron model. Do I need to tell you how that worked out? I hope not.
It depends on the case. I think if a company is freely offering their shows (like with hulu), then you probably should watch them there and let them have their advertising, if you intend to watch them at all. Same goes for trying to use open source over proprietary-pirated. Same goes for donating to people who use the CC. It's a matter of rewarding good behavior (freely offering, not being copyright-trolling scumbags). Further, I stand by the idea that piracy helps sell a product, so I do not advocate pirating the materials of the worse companies out there: it can only help them.
Wanting to abolish copyright does not mean I want everyone to donate their efforts and then go to the drum circle afterwards and sing Kumbaya: it means I see copyright specifically, and the idea that information and ideas are something you can lay a legal claim on, as flawed and immoral concepts. I think if people do a good job, they can make money and support themselves without copyright as well as with it. Of course, like with games (and possibilities movies), there will be downsides... but I think that is a trade-off that needs made. A country cannot survive forever by creating "intellectual property," nor should it.
Because you have no right to control it. It's pretty simple. If I say something stupid, it's your right to tell others I said it. If I say something smart, it's your right to repeat it. If I write something smart, it's your right to repeat it. So on. Piracy is not immoral. Stealing art out of the public domain, which is largely unquestioned by supporters of copyright like you, is. Manipulating markets, preventing independent artists for gaining traction, censoring communication mediums, etc., is immoral. Yet we can now see these things are the end result of copyright. The right to control information is not one society needs to be handing out. It doesn't matter if you agree with that or not. Your ability to do so is given to you by the government, which we all have a say in - if you want to keep claiming rights you don't have... that's your problem. As I see it, that concept got us in a bad position and now it needs to go away once and for all. No amount of you claiming I am a crackpot can change that.
As for other business models - we already have them. If you're a musician, go perform your music. If you are an artist, draw/paint on commission. If you are a programmer, program specific things for people who need them. If you are a writer, it might be a little more complicated, but the current system doesn't do much for writers, anyway. Basically - do what was done for centuries before the copyright industry was created. The internet opens up even more options, like feasible donation systems, advertizing, open source, etc.. There is no shortage of alternatives. The problem is that people cling to the status quo, because they are told to do so by those making bundles on it at their expense.
As it stands, you will only make enough to live on creating copyrighted material in a very narrow set of fields, like software. Even then, you're only really depending on copyright if you work for a company selling end-user software. Web development, lower level system development, control software for machinery, etc., all will be totally unchanged by if copyright exists or not. The fact is that outside of software, you will not survive on your "right" to control information unless you sell it to a cartel. You will not survive on music unless you are chosen by the RIAA to become super-rich, which is not really a practical outcome.
So to directly answer your last question(?): it's not your information, it isn't your right to control it, and it isn't our duty to find a way for you to profit off of it. Hope that makes my position clear.
So you're saying, because I don't think people should make money off it (by the current model), my position is unrealistic... because this is the information age? That is like claiming steam should have been taxed in the industrial age, because otherwise, governments would go broke. Obviously, you think people have a right to control information. I do not. I think that is what got us into all these problems with patents and copyright trolling in the first place. As long as people respect a "right" to control information, information will be limited. The "information age" happened not because information was controlled, but because, for a time, it wasn't.
That you totally disregard everything I said and call me a crackpot and my positions fantasy I think says far more about you than it does me. The fact you are completely unable to see how the current situation is flawed (beyond pointing out the symptoms) and that it could be made better is your problem, not mine. The fact is, there is growing discontent about this state of affairs. Being a person holding this stance, I have seen almost startling growth in the number of people totally rejecting copyright as an idea. It is still a small number, but like happened once before, we might yet see a total rejection of this kind of made-up property by the masses. You can complain about crackpots and fantasy when you are in the minority.
Information was always considered free. Specific reproductions were not, because of the extreme cost in making them. It was about the physical objects, not the content. Information that did not need a physical medium to be communicated, such as musical lyrics, was almost universally free up until the 19th century.
It's funny you should mention "romantic," because the idea that artists have some sort of claim to control their works was an idea of the Romantics. It had not existed previously at any point I am aware of in history. The Romantics believed creation of art was a divine act (as in divine inspiration) which entitled the artist to profit from it and control it. Sadly, the Romantics were horribly wrong about that, as they were about many other things, like science. I just wish people would realize they were wrong and stop repeating the meme simply because it benefits a modern industry to do so.