Everything you've heard of

is copyright and requires a license - it is fundamentally unfair

The first time I ever heard anyone Declared death of copyright, it was not a dreadlocks GNU / Linux hacker or cyberpunk in shades of mirror: he was an officer of music, circa 1999, to respond to the launch of Napster.

I thought it was

Wrong Then, and I think he's wrong now - like everyone else who has the copyright Declared to be dead.

The problem is

in the name:

copy

right. The Statute of Anne menarche and others involved in copying verbatim copying Themselves because the industry has been associated with the activity of creative expression at the time. There was a lot of

crafts

related to culture, of course - the show's music, theater and dance, painting pictures, and so on - thesis use industrial activities are not.

It has not been associated with Them device that allowed them to raise large scale and speed. And there were some cultural guardians IF - gallery owners, bookers performance came, guilds - They had a much more tenuous. Unlike printers (industry), they were not in position to make big money from a single act of creation, nor in the position to alienate all the money from a creator, nor in the position to raise the expectations of venture capitalists With this money, nor in the position to guard against competitors that cut into their markets with Having duplicates.

When performance

, visual media, and probably became a three-dimensional works on an industrial scale distribution, we have extended "copy" right to 'em, even if there were not necessarily "best" to be held.

copyright was, is and will always be properly considered "Rules governing the supply chain of the entertainment industry", and have expanded the entertainment industry, we expanded rules that cover the new ICT activities. Rules for the industry may be a good idea after all. At their best, they balance the bargaining positions between the different actors in the industry (eg, lack of negotiation artists who, to take advantage early in their careers), the salts of the ban on unscrupulous tactics, monopolistic competition and defend against the instincts of industrialists.

The "copy" in there because of an accident copyright year history: Once upon a time, to "copy" to do something was the industry. Copy of the necessary physical facilities, employees, and business premises. While not all industry could be reduced to "copy" the whole industry was copying presumption. There were ways of non-industrially copy things - a sculptor sculptor could copy another work by applying his eye and hand and chisel, a historical writer could plunge the pen and September on the lines of a Another writer - but it was not really necessary to explicitly declare that Was not this the kind of thing Governed by copyright. This activity was almost always invisible to rights holders, and even if the individual work happened at the level of care year to a copyright holder, hey seems like a madman trying to apply rules to individual sector actors. It's like asking your neighbors to sign up as a bed and breakfast because they have got in for weekend guests who chipped in for groceries.

Industrial Processes

decision rule tends to be dominated by the powerful, the incumbent, and the rich. They are well-organized in September for themselves, they are already familiar with the ins and outs of government, and they have the legitimacy tautological to success: "You are good farm year because you rich, so the how you become rich must be honest "As a result, tender copyright (and tend) to favor with investors intérêts in the works of creation - the labels, studios, publishers - to the detriment of creators, which are more diffuse, and are undermined by the ". irrational" nature of creative work.

People

raise capital for companies - publishers, record labels, studios, on the basis of knowledge this year is likely to trust the market is to recover the investment. In the absence of any anti-competitive approach, you expect about Be There to have many "investor" Enterprises in the creative sector that may be the best evidence suggests supported on a slightly more optimistic view on how to grow year Represent the sector.

other hand, because they may not contribute to creators themselves.

Even if I live my copyright today, I always knew I'd be mad to have it, and now I know I'm as lucky as a lottery winner. I have so many talented writers who puts have not gotten any break, and some of them abandoned, many of them the goal continues to produce. Because they are not written in a rational way they believe they will one day replace their day-wage employment "with fees, commissions and advances - They write because they must.

As a result, the supply side of the copyright industries has always satisfy excess demand. There has never been and never will be, industry regulation that will provide years a living wage to a significant fraction of those who dream of leaving their day job and pursuit of the arts. We could achieve a system of este-through grants, through the gold-technological realization of techno Some Kind of post-scarcity society, There simply arent enough people who want to aim to pay money sufficient to pay for the product of the entertainment industry the way of anyone who harbors dreams.

A: several times in the history of industrialized entertainment, new technologies generated Establish rules of new copyright. A resulted in a coverage radius of licenses; phonograms (as originally pianos) generated compulsory mechanical licenses are compositions. Some of them were "good" rules and some were "bad" rules - where "good" can mean "pro-competition" and "just for the creators," and "bad" can mean "anti-competitive" and "unfair to the creators." The creators and industry investors / distributors spend a lot of time talking about the best way to manage compliance and how IS should be reformed.
because they

personal AA>

activities - from Kids Who MegaUpload to share music on filmmakers Their fans who download Mashups on YouTube. Most of this activity involves some business entity, somewhere along the way, as a writer who has copied inspiring transitional year of Milton will have to buy his quills and ink and paper somewhere. Goal is not from YouTube in the entertainment industry. It is a platform for sharing the video Each kind it is, from images of an atrocity in wartime capital to personally meaningful images of a wedding reception and perfect images trivial cute things to be cute. He is an editor such as paper, more like a movie film studio, more like a studio recording a microphone.
Anyone who pays attention - including a sizeable chunk of entertainment executives - includes the limitation of the copy on the internet is bound to exercise, and the attempt that requires monitoring of the mass on the Internet each activity, large-scale censorship, and the extension of complex, difficult to understand règlements to people who have no hope of understanding them and should not be expected. It is as if the industry has suddenly decided that singing in the shower counts as one-Regulated Market "performance" and now he wants to ask plumbers, fixing showers makers and soap makers to help eradicate piracy , and wants cameras in our bathrooms and long legal agreements for anyone who wants legitimately sing AND rubs.

Find best price for : --Hold----Millions----Nation----Takes----each----anyone----YouTube----MegaUpload----people----this----even----There----industrial----copyright--