anything you've heard of copyright and is subject to a license - that is inherently unfair

The first time I heard someone say the death of the author, who was not a dreadlocks GNU / Linux hacker or cyberpunk in shades of mirror: he was an officer of music, circa 1999, in response to the launch of Napster.

I thought I was wrong and evil, and now I think -. Like everyone else that said copyright is dead

The problem is in the name:

copy

right. The Statute of Anne copyright and other rules of the first on the literal copy because the copy was the only industrial activity related to creative expression at a time. There was a lot of

crafts

associated with culture, of course - performance, music theater and dance, paint pictures, etc. -. But it was not industrial activities

There were no devices associated with them which enabled them to take place on a large scale and speed. And although there were some cultural guardians - gallery, theater bookers, unions - had a much more tenuous. Unlike printers (industry), they were not able to make lots of money from a single act of creation, not in a position to have all the money from a creator, unable to raise capital investors with the hope that the money or the position of having to push the competitors who cut their duplicates markets.

When the means of performance, visual and three-dimensional works became sensitive to the distribution on an industrial scale, we have expanded "copy" of the law which, although not necessarily the "copies" instead .

Copyright

was, is and will always be considered "rules governing the supply chain of the entertainment industry" and that the entertainment industry expanded, we have extended the rules to cover new activities . Rules for industry can be a good idea after all. At its peak, the balance between the bargaining positions between the different actors in the industry (eg, lack of bargaining power that artists have to start their careers), the prohibition of unscrupulous sales tactics, and competitive instincts of monopoly industry.

The "copy" of copyright is not due to an accident of history: Once upon a time, to "copy" was to do something industrial. Copy requires the physical plant, employees, local business. Although not being all that the industry could be reduced to "copy" was allegedly copied all industrial sectors. There were non-industrial forms of copying things - a sculptor could copy the work of another sculptor of the application of your eye and hand and a chisel, a writer could dip his pen and set lines another writer - but was not really necessary to state explicitly that it was not the kind of thing covered by copyright. This activity was mostly invisible to the rights holders, and even if an individual work happened up to the attention of a rights holder that looks a little silly to try to apply the standards industry to individual actors. It's like asking your neighbors to sign up as a bed and breakfast, as we have customers in the weekend which jumped at the supermarket.

industrial process of developing standards tend to be dominated by the powerful, the owner, and the rich. They are best suited to organize, which is already familiar with the intricacies of government, and are popular legitimacy tautological: "You are an honest company, and became rich, therefore, how they became rich should be vertical. "Accordingly, the Copyright tended (and tends) to promote the interests of investors in the works of creation, labels, studios, publishers, at the expense of creators, who are more diffuse, and are undermined by the "irrational" nature of creative work.

people to raise capital for companies - publishers, labels, the study - based on trust informed that there is a market opportunity for revenge. In the absence of any anti-competitive should have almost as many "Investors" creative sector companies as the best evidence suggests that it may be supported, and a little more than represent an optimistic view of how sector to grow.

other hand, the creators to create, because they can not help themselves.

Living Well with my copyright today, I always knew it would be crazy to have that, and now I know I'm as lucky as a lottery winner . I have known many talented writers who have not received any jump, and some of them have given up, but many are still occurring. They are not written as rationally believe that one day replace the wages of their jobs every day "with royalties, advances and commissions -. They write because they have to

Consequently, the supply side of the copyright industries is always an excess of demand over. It has never been and never will be, an industrial regulation will provide a living wage to a significant proportion of those who dream of leaving your day job and arts production. We can achieve this through a system of grants, or any technological achievement of post-scarcity society, but simply not enough people willing to pay money for the product enough to pay the entertainment industry as everyone who cares about sleep.

At various times in the history of industrialized entertainment, new technologies have created new copyright rules. Radio led to general licenses, phonograms (first as pianos) generated mechanical licenses in the compositions. Some of them were "good" rules are rules and some "bad" - where "good" can mean "pro-competitive" and "just-makers" and "bad" can mean "anti-competitive" and "unfair for creators. "The sector developers and investors / dealer spend much time discussing how best to manage these regulations and how they should be reformed.
Personal

activities - from children who share music via MegaUpload for filmmakers lovers to bring their own mashups on YouTube. Most of this activity is a business entity, somewhere along the way, as a writer who has filed a passage inspired Milton would have to buy their pens and paper and ink, somewhere. But YouTube is not part of the entertainment industry. This is a platform to share all kinds of video out there, from images of a transcendental atrocity of the war to important personal images of a marriage banal images of irrefutable and how he is cute cute. It's like the role of a publisher, more like the flick of a movie studio. Over a recording studio microphone
Anyone who pays attention - including a considerable part of the entertainment executives - understand that limiting the copy on the Internet is an exercise doomed to failure, and that the attempt requires monitoring of mass of all Internet activities, censorship of scale and scope of complex, difficult to understand the regulations to persons who have no hope of understanding them and you should not expect that. It is as if the industry has suddenly decided to sing in the shower is considered a regulated market "performance" and now you want to do plumbing, shower accessories makers and soap makers to help end, piracy, and want cameras in the bathrooms and the long legal agreements for those who legitimately want to sing while he rubs.

Find best price for : --News----Millions----Nation----Takes----YouTube----MegaUpload----industrial--