Here is an interesting essay by Stalman. He can hardly be called a passive or objective voice on the issue of copyright law, but he is certainly a clear thinker and an interesting one. I find myself moving glacially over to his camp as I have more and more experiences forcing me to compare free software with restricted-use software.
He introduces his topic with the following:
quote: Under the U.S. Constitution, copyright exists to benefit users -- those who read books, listen to music, watch movies, or run software -- not for the sake of publishers or authors. Yet even as people tend increasingly to reject and disobey the copyright restrictions imposed on them "for their own benefit," the U.S. government is adding more restrictions, and trying to frighten the public into obedience with harsh new penalties.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Copywrite laws are not written to benefit the end user. The laws were created so those who create have some opportunity to benefit from those creations. Why should a movie studio spend millions to produce a movie if theaters could just pirate copies of the movie and show it without royalties?
The problem lies in the length of the copy protection. The congress has extended this time over and over, thus preventing many works from entering the public domain.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Robespierre -- no, they were originally created almost exclusively for the benefit of the end user. Of course, the reasoning was that by providing protections to the creator, creativity is fostered, so copyright laws protect the creator. But the ultimate end is to benefit the end users. It makes that pretty clear right in the Constitution.