I too believe we need to stand up against the ability to lay claims on ownership of a copy. Since we are heading in medical directions that eventually
could lead to cloning, and such, whos to say someone can't create a clone of you, name it something else, but it looks like you. But they own it, and
create the next Beiber with it, then what?
I know it's far fetched, but also think of the implications of ownership of a copy, I make a music track, and it took me maybe 2 days to a week, I
should make money off that time it took and my creative process, ok understood. But should I continue to make money off that same track over and over
and over, endlessly right? Now multiple that by thousands, and you have the poor record companies and movie companies making money over and over and
over again, endlessly it seems.
That seems like a great way to mess up an economy. The production of a one time item, that continues to make money off copies of itself. Specially in
the digital age, it's only a matter harddrive space and processor speed that limits profit, not talent, not true creative process ( the need to
constantly come up with new material ), selling copies means sooner or later people wont have to try as hard, they can just sell copies. This goes
with anything digital and really should concern you, whole empires have been making millions off virtually nothing.
Yes I should own the rights to something I make, but I don't think I should be able to make endless amounts of money off endless amounts of copies,
yes also competitive market place will drive more better versions, but for songs, movies, and artwork, it's kinda a economic bad issue In my opinion.
I was in a band, I have friends who still tour from their high school band, and guess what, you won't make it solely due to the amount of music that
is out there, you can make it to the point of playing bars and clubs, but music and movies isn't anything more than a popularity market, afraid to
say, its no longer about talent, just about appealing to sensations. Now a days, it's about how many views you get, how passed around your content is,
that makes or breaks you. Now if the internet is censored, the music and movie industry goes from everyone being able to pass around the content and
exposing unnamed people, and gaining a following of people who will buy anything you make, to a world where you have to file a petition to upload
content, where you have to register your content with a patent office before you can even give it to another person.
There is something to be said about this all from both sides, but I stand firmly on the creative process side.
The post under me has it right, if people solely owned the rights, people would see it more as supporting them, rather then some no faced entity, as
well once that said person dies, the rights are open for public use? or would it become property handed down like coins and other such inheritance.
edit on 3-10-2012 by Moneyisgodlifeisrented because: (no reason given)