Quote:
Originally Posted by cbooty
Every example of copyright law I gave is an instance where someone thinks they should be compensated but generally aren't. Isn't singing happy birthday stealing performance rights the same way downloading a mp3 is stealing revenue? If not, what's the difference? Some artist wrote happy birthday and someone (AOL) owns the right to it. Why shouldn't they be compensated the same way?
What drives me nuts about this is people want to oversimplify a complicated issue.
|
Every issue worth considering is infinitely nuanced and complex.
I stand by my point that we aren't arguing whether artists should be paid or not, but rather HOW MUCH they should be paid at a single instance, or over time.
I think you're mistaking me with someone who thinks the status quo is acceptable. I'm merely saying that, if you truly want to change the system, STOP CONSUMING CONTENT WHICH IS LICENSED UNDER TERMS WHICH YOU REJECT. The content producers will change, trust me.
By stealing content, you feed the enemy. You help create draconian laws and things like DRM.
You waste all of humanity's time playing cat-and-mouse games.
If you don't like the terms under which "Happy Birthday" is licensed, come up with an alternative and license it freely for all of mankind.
The current law isn't as draconian as you make it out to be.