[Cyberguy34000]

Thanks for taking the time to respond people!

I'm grateful that people have taken time out of their days to discuss this, and I'd like to elaborate a little more on what I'm saying...


Most of the existing copyright related laws we have are based on the idea of a triad model between author, publisher, and public. The author would spend a great deal of effort and energy in creating a work. The author would then be reimbursed for their efforts by the publisher, who would then go out and sell that work and be (hopefully) reimbursed by the public.

The author would always need the publisher because they did not have the ability or the resources to distribute their work (they spent all their time creating it), and the public would always need the publisher because otherwise there was no way for them to access the author's work.

However, with the advent of computers and the internet, we have run into a problem. To a great extent, the publisher is no longer needed. With this new technology, authors have direct access to the public. They can have their work distributed en mass to millions overnight if there is an interest.

Distribution costs? 0$

Publishers and distributors are going nuts about this. On one hand, this means that their operating costs drop through the floor, but now that anyone can be a distributer with almost no effort on their part, they have a lot more competition, which means that their days are numbered...

Easiest solution? Make it illegal to compete.

And really, I don't blame these organizations for doing so, it's their livelihood at stake after all. But I question whether or not this is the best thing for everyone, not just the publishers and distributors (who are so immanently featured in the copyright law debate.)

What's frustrating to see is when these organizations muddy the waters of the debate by equating an economic issue of concern on the basis of moral issue, which it is not. And then to criminalize competition on the basis of a legal monopoly on something as vague in nature as an idea, and every inspiration that can come from that idea...

It just worries me.

===========================

Our constitution says that congress has the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

What that seems to me as saying is that when those "exclusive right(s)", (read: copyrights), are only valid insofar as they promote progress... I would challenge that the current laws created under the authority of this part of the constitution are antiquated to a dying business model, hindering progress and should be reevaluated.



Your thoughts?

-Chris